11-18-06
1:33 EDT
Breaking...
Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam
Hanoi, Vietnam -- (AFP) -- President Bush rode in a bullet-proof limo
triumphantly down the main street of Ho Chi Minh City Friday, declaring
that "I finally made it to Vietnam."
Over 30 years ago, Bush signed with the Texas Air National Guard to
keep from serving in war-torn South Vietnam whose democratic capital
was then called Saigon. Its shaky government collapsed quickly despite
over 11 years of intense US military training.
And now over 30 years later he arrives in Vietnam to escape US voters'
fury over his failed Iraq policy.
"It's great to be here and I just wanna tell ya that Laura and I love
these lil' gooks," said Bush.
"I think they're kinda' cute and cuddly things," said Mrs. Bush.
.
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
18 Nov 2006 09:18:57 AM |
|
|
EOD wrote:
... South Vietnam whose democratic capital was then called
Saigon. Its shaky government collapsed quickly despite over
11 years of intense US military training.
Let's see, the Communist government of North Vietnam was fully funded
by their allies (USSR and China), while the free government of South
Vietnam had the rug pulled out from under it by the Congress of its
major ally. What did you think was going to happen under those
circumstances?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
18 Nov 2006 11:22:57 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
EOD wrote:
... South Vietnam whose democratic capital was then called
Saigon. Its shaky government collapsed quickly despite over
11 years of intense US military training.
Let's see, the Communist government of North Vietnam was fully funded
by their allies (USSR and China), while the free government of South
Vietnam had the rug pulled out from under it by the Congress of its
major ally. What did you think was going to happen under those
circumstances?
Nixon and Kissinger pulled the military out. The South was against this
decision.
The South couldn't win by throwing American dollars at the North two
years after U.S. forces left.
You have to choose your wars carefully. Why was Vietnam so
strategically important to the U.S.? Had the circumstances changed
since the time the U.S. became involved and when it eventually left?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
18 Nov 2006 04:23:29 PM |
|
|
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
EOD wrote:
... South Vietnam whose democratic capital was then called
Saigon. Its shaky government collapsed quickly despite over
11 years of intense US military training.
Let's see, the Communist government of North Vietnam was fully funded
by their allies (USSR and China), while the free government of South
Vietnam had the rug pulled out from under it by the Congress of its
major ally. What did you think was going to happen under those
circumstances?
Nixon and Kissinger pulled the military out.
Under terms of the Paris Peace Accord.
The South was against this decision.
The South couldn't win by throwing American dollars at the North two
years after U.S. forces left.
Uh, the South was holding its own as long as the United States held up
its end of the bargain in the Paris Peace Accord -- meaning we were
funding the government of South Vietnam, with the promise to back them
up militarily if the Communists restarted the hostilities. That held up
for nearly two years -- until Nixon resigned because of Watergate, and
the Democratically controlled Congress cut off funding to South
Vietnam. Meanwhile, the Communist North Vietnamese were rearming with
the full support of their allies (USSR and China), and they decided to
test the resolve of the US without Nixon. And they were right, we had
lost our resolve and did not intervene, allowing the Communists to
march into Saigon several months later.
You have to choose your wars carefully. Why was Vietnam so
strategically important to the U.S.?
It was a battle in the Cold War against the spread of international
Communism.
Had the circumstances changed
since the time the U.S. became involved and when it eventually left?
We left under terms of a peace accord that could have held up, just as
the one in Korea has held up -- IF we hadn't lost our resolve.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
19 Nov 2006 08:26:10 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
EOD wrote:
... South Vietnam whose democratic capital was then called
Saigon. Its shaky government collapsed quickly despite over
11 years of intense US military training.
Let's see, the Communist government of North Vietnam was fully funded
by their allies (USSR and China), while the free government of South
Vietnam had the rug pulled out from under it by the Congress of its
major ally. What did you think was going to happen under those
circumstances?
Nixon and Kissinger pulled the military out.
Under terms of the Paris Peace Accord.
The South was against this decision.
The South couldn't win by throwing American dollars at the North two
years after U.S. forces left.
Uh, the South was holding its own as long as the United States held up
its end of the bargain in the Paris Peace Accord -- meaning we were
funding the government of South Vietnam, with the promise to back them
up militarily if the Communists restarted the hostilities. That held up
for nearly two years -- until Nixon resigned because of Watergate, and
the Democratically controlled Congress cut off funding to South
Vietnam. Meanwhile, the Communist North Vietnamese were rearming with
the full support of their allies (USSR and China), and they decided to
test the resolve of the US without Nixon. And they were right, we had
lost our resolve and did not intervene, allowing the Communists to
march into Saigon several months later.
You have to choose your wars carefully. Why was Vietnam so
strategically important to the U.S.?
It was a battle in the Cold War against the spread of international
Communism.
We appear to have won the Cold War without the need for
armed conflict. We won because our socio-economic system
beat the crap out of the Communist system, not because we
beat anyone at combat (our armed forces were useful only as
a deterrent). Actual armed conflict appears to have been
unnecessary.
Had the circumstances changed
since the time the U.S. became involved and when it eventually left?
We left under terms of a peace accord that could have held up, just as
the one in Korea has held up -- IF we hadn't lost our resolve.
What was victory supposed to have looked like.. South Vietnam
successfully separating from North Vietnam.. or were we hoping
for the South to take over the North ? As I recall we were there
specifically to enforce SEATO (South-East Asia Treaty Organization).
It was the terms of a treaty we were trying to enforce, not to stop
the spread of Communism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
19 Nov 2006 11:25:03 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
EOD wrote:
... South Vietnam whose democratic capital was then called
Saigon. Its shaky government collapsed quickly despite over
11 years of intense US military training.
Let's see, the Communist government of North Vietnam was fully funded
by their allies (USSR and China), while the free government of South
Vietnam had the rug pulled out from under it by the Congress of its
major ally. What did you think was going to happen under those
circumstances?
Nixon and Kissinger pulled the military out.
Under terms of the Paris Peace Accord.
The South was against this decision.
The South couldn't win by throwing American dollars at the North two
years after U.S. forces left.
Uh, the South was holding its own as long as the United States held up
its end of the bargain in the Paris Peace Accord -- meaning we were
funding the government of South Vietnam, with the promise to back them
up militarily if the Communists restarted the hostilities. That held up
for nearly two years -- until Nixon resigned because of Watergate, and
the Democratically controlled Congress cut off funding to South
Vietnam. Meanwhile, the Communist North Vietnamese were rearming with
the full support of their allies (USSR and China), and they decided to
test the resolve of the US without Nixon. And they were right, we had
lost our resolve and did not intervene, allowing the Communists to
march into Saigon several months later.
You have to choose your wars carefully. Why was Vietnam so
strategically important to the U.S.?
It was a battle in the Cold War against the spread of international
Communism.
We appear to have won the Cold War without the need for
armed conflict. We won because our socio-economic system
beat the crap out of the Communist system, not because we
beat anyone at combat (our armed forces were useful only as
a deterrent). Actual armed conflict appears to have been
unnecessary.
Tell that to the people of South Korea.
Had the circumstances changed
since the time the U.S. became involved and when it eventually left?
We left under terms of a peace accord that could have held up, just as
the one in Korea has held up -- IF we hadn't lost our resolve.
What was victory supposed to have looked like.. South Vietnam
successfully separating from North Vietnam.. or were we hoping
for the South to take over the North ?
We were there for the same reason we were in Korea -- to preserve
liberty and prevent the Communists from forcing their Communism on the
free people of the South.
As I recall we were there specifically to enforce SEATO
(South-East Asia Treaty Organization).
It was the terms of a treaty we were trying to enforce, not to stop
the spread of Communism.
The major reason SEATO was organized was to prevent the spread of
Communism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
20 Nov 2006 08:15:44 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
EOD wrote:
... South Vietnam whose democratic capital was then called
Saigon. Its shaky government collapsed quickly despite over
11 years of intense US military training.
Let's see, the Communist government of North Vietnam was fully
funded
by their allies (USSR and China), while the free government of
South
Vietnam had the rug pulled out from under it by the Congress of
its
major ally. What did you think was going to happen under those
circumstances?
Nixon and Kissinger pulled the military out.
Under terms of the Paris Peace Accord.
The South was against this decision.
The South couldn't win by throwing American dollars at the North two
years after U.S. forces left.
Uh, the South was holding its own as long as the United States held
up
its end of the bargain in the Paris Peace Accord -- meaning we were
funding the government of South Vietnam, with the promise to back
them
up militarily if the Communists restarted the hostilities. That held
up
for nearly two years -- until Nixon resigned because of Watergate,
and
the Democratically controlled Congress cut off funding to South
Vietnam. Meanwhile, the Communist North Vietnamese were rearming with
the full support of their allies (USSR and China), and they decided
to
test the resolve of the US without Nixon. And they were right, we had
lost our resolve and did not intervene, allowing the Communists to
march into Saigon several months later.
You have to choose your wars carefully. Why was Vietnam so
strategically important to the U.S.?
It was a battle in the Cold War against the spread of international
Communism.
We appear to have won the Cold War without the need for
armed conflict. We won because our socio-economic system
beat the crap out of the Communist system, not because we
beat anyone at combat (our armed forces were useful only as
a deterrent). Actual armed conflict appears to have been
unnecessary.
Tell that to the people of South Korea.
Had the circumstances changed
since the time the U.S. became involved and when it eventually left?
We left under terms of a peace accord that could have held up, just
as
the one in Korea has held up -- IF we hadn't lost our resolve.
What was victory supposed to have looked like.. South Vietnam
successfully separating from North Vietnam.. or were we hoping
for the South to take over the North ?
We were there for the same reason we were in Korea -- to preserve
liberty and prevent the Communists from forcing their Communism on the
free people of the South.
JFK wouldn't have put us into that conflict. It was the war-mongers,
and military industrial complex that needed a battle-ground to test
their latest weapons. The 'struggle against communism' I think was
just a convenient idealogical justification, just as the 'war against
terror' provided the needed reasoning for our most recent excessive
use of force.
I think guys like Bush do this to show the world what huge havoc
we can cause with very little effort. Only problem is this time we're
going to pay in like kind to those we've ravaged. Our economy, world
prestige and standing have suffered dearly. He's taken a tenuous
economic situation and made it far, far worse. He's hastened the
point of reckoning where some socio-economics will suffer past
the breaking point.
As I recall we were there specifically to enforce SEATO
(South-East Asia Treaty Organization).
It was the terms of a treaty we were trying to enforce, not to stop
the spread of Communism.
The major reason SEATO was organized was to prevent the spread of
Communism.
True enough. I suppose I should read the details of the Treaty
before making stupid comments, eh ? I pulled the name of that
Treaty out of the dim recesses of my memory bank.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
20 Nov 2006 10:12:14 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
You have to choose your wars carefully. Why was Vietnam so
strategically important to the U.S.?
It was a battle in the Cold War against the spread of international
Communism.
We appear to have won the Cold War without the need for
armed conflict. We won because our socio-economic system
beat the crap out of the Communist system, not because we
beat anyone at combat (our armed forces were useful only as
a deterrent). Actual armed conflict appears to have been
unnecessary.
Tell that to the people of South Korea.
Had the circumstances changed
since the time the U.S. became involved and when it eventually left?
We left under terms of a peace accord that could have held up, just
as the one in Korea has held up -- IF we hadn't lost our resolve.
What was victory supposed to have looked like.. South Vietnam
successfully separating from North Vietnam.. or were we hoping
for the South to take over the North ?
We were there for the same reason we were in Korea -- to preserve
liberty and prevent the Communists from forcing their Communism on the
free people of the South.
JFK wouldn't have put us into that conflict.
JFK was a young congressman in 1950, and he supported the Truman
Doctrine.
It was the war-mongers,
and military industrial complex that needed a battle-ground to test
their latest weapons. The 'struggle against communism' I think was
just a convenient idealogical justification,
For the people who were forced to live under Communism, it was very
real. I once met a woman who had (as a teenager) spent a few days and
nights walking out of North Korea (into South Korea) just as the war
was beginning. She had to move at night and hide during the day. Her
parents had told her to get to the South so she could live in freedom.
She met a US soldier in South Korea, and he married her and brought her
to the US. She had a much different view of the US and its struggle
with Communism than you do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
21 Nov 2006 01:28:42 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
You have to choose your wars carefully. Why was Vietnam so
strategically important to the U.S.?
It was a battle in the Cold War against the spread of
international
Communism.
We appear to have won the Cold War without the need for
armed conflict. We won because our socio-economic system
beat the crap out of the Communist system, not because we
beat anyone at combat (our armed forces were useful only as
a deterrent). Actual armed conflict appears to have been
unnecessary.
Tell that to the people of South Korea.
Had the circumstances changed
since the time the U.S. became involved and when it eventually
left?
We left under terms of a peace accord that could have held up,
just
as the one in Korea has held up -- IF we hadn't lost our resolve.
What was victory supposed to have looked like.. South Vietnam
successfully separating from North Vietnam.. or were we hoping
for the South to take over the North ?
We were there for the same reason we were in Korea -- to preserve
liberty and prevent the Communists from forcing their Communism on
the
free people of the South.
JFK wouldn't have put us into that conflict.
JFK was a young congressman in 1950, and he supported the Truman
Doctrine.
.... but in 1964 JFK was the US President, and his plans were to
pull US troops out of south-east asia. Apparently he grew wiser
in those 14 years.
It was the war-mongers,
and military industrial complex that needed a battle-ground to test
their latest weapons. The 'struggle against communism' I think was
just a convenient idealogical justification,
For the people who were forced to live under Communism, it was very
real. I once met a woman who had (as a teenager) spent a few days and
nights walking out of North Korea (into South Korea) just as the war
was beginning. She had to move at night and hide during the day. Her
parents had told her to get to the South so she could live in freedom.
She met a US soldier in South Korea, and he married her and brought her
to the US. She had a much different view of the US and its struggle
with Communism than you do.
I'm sure she was well liked. You say she abandoned her own people
(North Koreans) just as they were mobilizing for war ? She certainly
must have been a credit to her group.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
21 Nov 2006 11:25:41 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
You have to choose your wars carefully. Why was Vietnam so
strategically important to the U.S.?
It was a battle in the Cold War against the spread of
international
Communism.
We appear to have won the Cold War without the need for
armed conflict. We won because our socio-economic system
beat the crap out of the Communist system, not because we
beat anyone at combat (our armed forces were useful only as
a deterrent). Actual armed conflict appears to have been
unnecessary.
Tell that to the people of South Korea.
Had the circumstances changed
since the time the U.S. became involved and when it eventually
left?
We left under terms of a peace accord that could have held up,
just
as the one in Korea has held up -- IF we hadn't lost our resolve.
What was victory supposed to have looked like.. South Vietnam
successfully separating from North Vietnam.. or were we hoping
for the South to take over the North ?
We were there for the same reason we were in Korea -- to preserve
liberty and prevent the Communists from forcing their Communism on
the
free people of the South.
JFK wouldn't have put us into that conflict.
JFK was a young congressman in 1950, and he supported the Truman
Doctrine.
... but in 1964 JFK was the US President, and his plans were to
pull US troops out of south-east asia. Apparently he grew wiser
in those 14 years.
JFK was assassinated in 1963. Can you show some documentation to back
up your claim that he had plans to pull US troops out of Southeast
Asia? Or just show what he was doing before he was assassinated that
would lead you to make that claim.
It was the war-mongers,
and military industrial complex that needed a battle-ground to test
their latest weapons. The 'struggle against communism' I think was
just a convenient idealogical justification,
For the people who were forced to live under Communism, it was very
real. I once met a woman who had (as a teenager) spent a few days and
nights walking out of North Korea (into South Korea) just as the war
was beginning. She had to move at night and hide during the day. Her
parents had told her to get to the South so she could live in freedom.
She met a US soldier in South Korea, and he married her and brought her
to the US. She had a much different view of the US and its struggle
with Communism than you do.
I'm sure she was well liked. You say she abandoned her own people
(North Koreans) just as they were mobilizing for war ? She certainly
must have been a credit to her group.
This is absolutely incredible, even for you. You're criticizing a young
woman for daring to escape from Communist North Korea? What the hell is
wrong with you? Were you also critical of East Germans who tried to
escape into West Germany? Many people who were forced to live under
Communist regimes have escaped -- or tried to escape, sometimes being
shot in the back for their efforts. North Koreans to this day try to
escape North Korea. If they escape into China, and are caught by
Chinese police, they are turned back over to North Korea where they are
first tortured, and then executed. And you're critical of people who
try to escape that system. This is a new low, even for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
22 Nov 2006 08:06:14 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
You have to choose your wars carefully. Why was Vietnam so
strategically important to the U.S.?
It was a battle in the Cold War against the spread of
international
Communism.
We appear to have won the Cold War without the need for
armed conflict. We won because our socio-economic system
beat the crap out of the Communist system, not because we
beat anyone at combat (our armed forces were useful only as
a deterrent). Actual armed conflict appears to have been
unnecessary.
Tell that to the people of South Korea.
Had the circumstances changed
since the time the U.S. became involved and when it eventually
left?
We left under terms of a peace accord that could have held up,
just
as the one in Korea has held up -- IF we hadn't lost our
resolve.
What was victory supposed to have looked like.. South Vietnam
successfully separating from North Vietnam.. or were we hoping
for the South to take over the North ?
We were there for the same reason we were in Korea -- to preserve
liberty and prevent the Communists from forcing their Communism on
the
free people of the South.
JFK wouldn't have put us into that conflict.
JFK was a young congressman in 1950, and he supported the Truman
Doctrine.
... but in 1964 JFK was the US President, and his plans were to
pull US troops out of south-east asia. Apparently he grew wiser
in those 14 years.
JFK was assassinated in 1963. Can you show some documentation to back
up your claim that he had plans to pull US troops out of Southeast
Asia? Or just show what he was doing before he was assassinated that
would lead you to make that claim.
Plenty of Presidential memos indicate he was favoring a
de-escalation of US involvement in Vietnam. What is far
more interesting is that Johnson subsequently massively
increased our involvement (to the point where US troops
were doing all the fighting), and we STILL lost 10 years
later. Then 30 years later Bush does the same thing, and
we're going to lose again.
Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting
a different outcome. Stupidity is George Bush thinking he
controls what people in places like Iraq think. No amount of
US Marines training Iraqi 'police' is going to stop a determined
population from taking back their own country (perhaps you've
forgotten your own American Revolution ?).
It was the war-mongers,
and military industrial complex that needed a battle-ground to test
their latest weapons. The 'struggle against communism' I think was
just a convenient idealogical justification,
For the people who were forced to live under Communism, it was very
real. I once met a woman who had (as a teenager) spent a few days and
nights walking out of North Korea (into South Korea) just as the war
was beginning. She had to move at night and hide during the day. Her
parents had told her to get to the South so she could live in
freedom.
She met a US soldier in South Korea, and he married her and brought
her
to the US. She had a much different view of the US and its struggle
with Communism than you do.
I'm sure she was well liked. You say she abandoned her own people
(North Koreans) just as they were mobilizing for war ? She certainly
must have been a credit to her group.
This is absolutely incredible, even for you. You're criticizing a young
woman for daring to escape from Communist North Korea? What the hell is
wrong with you? Were you also critical of East Germans who tried to
escape into West Germany?
Nah, just the Korean girl who abandoned her people just as they
were going to war. I suppose you were on the side of Benedict Arnold
as he 'escaped' the evil colonial revolutionaries so he could be
amongst King and Crown ?
Communism isn't an inherently oppressive system. You've been
brain-washed by your many years of living in the US.
Many people who were forced to live under
Communist regimes have escaped -- or tried to escape, sometimes being
shot in the back for their efforts. North Koreans to this day try to
escape North Korea. If they escape into China, and are caught by
Chinese police, they are turned back over to North Korea where they are
first tortured, and then executed. And you're critical of people who
try to escape that system. This is a new low, even for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
22 Nov 2006 08:36:33 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
You have to choose your wars carefully. Why was Vietnam so
strategically important to the U.S.?
It was a battle in the Cold War against the spread of
international
Communism.
We appear to have won the Cold War without the need for
armed conflict. We won because our socio-economic system
beat the crap out of the Communist system, not because we
beat anyone at combat (our armed forces were useful only as
a deterrent). Actual armed conflict appears to have been
unnecessary.
Tell that to the people of South Korea.
Had the circumstances changed
since the time the U.S. became involved and when it eventually
left?
We left under terms of a peace accord that could have held up,
just
as the one in Korea has held up -- IF we hadn't lost our
resolve.
What was victory supposed to have looked like.. South Vietnam
successfully separating from North Vietnam.. or were we hoping
for the South to take over the North ?
We were there for the same reason we were in Korea -- to preserve
liberty and prevent the Communists from forcing their Communism on
the
free people of the South.
JFK wouldn't have put us into that conflict.
JFK was a young congressman in 1950, and he supported the Truman
Doctrine.
... but in 1964 JFK was the US President, and his plans were to
pull US troops out of south-east asia. Apparently he grew wiser
in those 14 years.
JFK was assassinated in 1963. Can you show some documentation to back
up your claim that he had plans to pull US troops out of Southeast
Asia? Or just show what he was doing before he was assassinated that
would lead you to make that claim.
Plenty of Presidential memos indicate he was favoring a
de-escalation of US involvement in Vietnam.
Then you shouldn't have any trouble coming up with one or two, should
you? Go ahead, back up your claim with some documentation.
What is farmore interesting is that Johnson subsequently
massively increased our involvement (to the point where
US troops were doing all the fighting),
Not true.
and we STILL lost 10 years later.
We didn't lose militarily. The only thing we lost was our resolve. We
had the Communists stopped for more than two years. I know you're
unaware of that two year time frame, because you think the helicopters
leaving the US Embassy in Saigon was our troops leaving Vietnam. And
you're still wrong.
Then 30 years later Bush does the same thing, and we're
going to lose again.
With cut and run proponents like you calling for our defeat, you could
turn your hope for our defeat into (what would be for you) a
self-fulfilling prophesy.
Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting
a different outcome. Stupidity is George Bush thinking he
controls what people in places like Iraq think. No amount of
US Marines training Iraqi 'police' is going to stop a determined
population from taking back their own country
You still don't seem to understand that a majority of the Iraqi people
voted for their new government, and rejected the insurgency. You just
can't seem to get it into your head that the insurgency does not
represent the "determined" population of Iraq.
(perhaps you've forgotten your own American Revolution ?).
Wasn't it your American Revolution as well? Or would you have been a
British loyalist?
It was the war-mongers,
and military industrial complex that needed a battle-ground to test
their latest weapons. The 'struggle against communism' I think was
just a convenient idealogical justification,
For the people who were forced to live under Communism, it was very
real. I once met a woman who had (as a teenager) spent a few days and
nights walking out of North Korea (into South Korea) just as the war
was beginning. She had to move at night and hide during the day. Her
parents had told her to get to the South so she could live in
freedom.
She met a US soldier in South Korea, and he married her and brought
her
to the US. She had a much different view of the US and its struggle
with Communism than you do.
I'm sure she was well liked. You say she abandoned her own people
(North Koreans) just as they were mobilizing for war ? She certainly
must have been a credit to her group.
This is absolutely incredible, even for you. You're criticizing a young
woman for daring to escape from Communist North Korea? What the hell is
wrong with you? Were you also critical of East Germans who tried to
escape into West Germany?
Nah, just the Korean girl who abandoned her people just as they
were going to war.
You mean as the North Korean Communists were attempting to enslave the
free people of South Korea? Why do you think that woman's parents told
her to get to South Korea while she could? Sheesh, are you losing your
mind?
I suppose you were on the side of Benedict Arnold
as he 'escaped' the evil colonial revolutionaries so he could be
amongst King and Crown ?
How strange. There is absolutely no comparison to those two situations.
Communism isn't an inherently oppressive system.
Show me a Communist regime that has not been oppressive.
You've been brain-washed by your many years
of living in the US.
Then you should have no problem showing me a Communist regime that was
not oppressive. Put it right here --->
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
23 Nov 2006 11:06:49 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
You have to choose your wars carefully. Why was Vietnam so
strategically important to the U.S.?
It was a battle in the Cold War against the spread of
international
Communism.
We appear to have won the Cold War without the need for
armed conflict. We won because our socio-economic system
beat the crap out of the Communist system, not because we
beat anyone at combat (our armed forces were useful only as
a deterrent). Actual armed conflict appears to have been
unnecessary.
Tell that to the people of South Korea.
Had the circumstances changed
since the time the U.S. became involved and when it
eventually
left?
We left under terms of a peace accord that could have held
up,
just
as the one in Korea has held up -- IF we hadn't lost our
resolve.
What was victory supposed to have looked like.. South Vietnam
successfully separating from North Vietnam.. or were we hoping
for the South to take over the North ?
We were there for the same reason we were in Korea -- to
preserve
liberty and prevent the Communists from forcing their Communism
on
the
free people of the South.
JFK wouldn't have put us into that conflict.
JFK was a young congressman in 1950, and he supported the Truman
Doctrine.
... but in 1964 JFK was the US President, and his plans were to
pull US troops out of south-east asia. Apparently he grew wiser
in those 14 years.
JFK was assassinated in 1963. Can you show some documentation to back
up your claim that he had plans to pull US troops out of Southeast
Asia? Or just show what he was doing before he was assassinated that
would lead you to make that claim.
Plenty of Presidential memos indicate he was favoring a
de-escalation of US involvement in Vietnam.
Then you shouldn't have any trouble coming up with one or two, should
you? Go ahead, back up your claim with some documentation.
It is so easy to find, even someone like you should have no
trouble finding it. JFK wasn't a war-monger, but you are. You're
no student of JFK.
What is farmore interesting is that Johnson subsequently
massively increased our involvement (to the point where
US troops were doing all the fighting),
Not true.
and we STILL lost 10 years later.
We didn't lose militarily. The only thing we lost was our resolve.
The loss of public support IS a military loss. We could have stayed
in Vietnam 50 years and still not 'won' in the sense you would have
hoped for. At some point we have to stop being the military agressor.
For Vietnam it was 10 years into it. We'll arrive at the same point
in Iraq.
We
had the Communists stopped for more than two years. I know you're
unaware of that two year time frame, because you think the helicopters
leaving the US Embassy in Saigon was our troops leaving Vietnam. And
you're still wrong.
You still trying to argue inanity, Stephen ? If you want to
argue with me, you'll have to pick something worth arguing about.
Then 30 years later Bush does the same thing, and we're
going to lose again.
With cut and run proponents like you calling for our defeat, you could
turn your hope for our defeat into (what would be for you) a
self-fulfilling prophesy.
The Republicans founded the cut and run strategy, so you'd know
best about this.
Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting
a different outcome. Stupidity is George Bush thinking he
controls what people in places like Iraq think. No amount of
US Marines training Iraqi 'police' is going to stop a determined
population from taking back their own country
You still don't seem to understand that a majority of the Iraqi people
voted for their new government, and rejected the insurgency. You just
can't seem to get it into your head that the insurgency does not
represent the "determined" population of Iraq.
Forget about 'insurgency' versus 'population' for a minute.
Let's talk about bombs, dead Iraqis, and a failure of US
military security in Iraq. Your buddy Bush got us into this.
How you plan on getting us out ?
(perhaps you've forgotten your own American Revolution ?).
Wasn't it your American Revolution as well? Or would you have been a
British loyalist?
It was the war-mongers,
and military industrial complex that needed a battle-ground to
test
their latest weapons. The 'struggle against communism' I think
was
just a convenient idealogical justification,
For the people who were forced to live under Communism, it was
very
real. I once met a woman who had (as a teenager) spent a few days
and
nights walking out of North Korea (into South Korea) just as the
war
was beginning. She had to move at night and hide during the day.
Her
parents had told her to get to the South so she could live in
freedom.
She met a US soldier in South Korea, and he married her and
brought
her
to the US. She had a much different view of the US and its
struggle
with Communism than you do.
I'm sure she was well liked. You say she abandoned her own people
(North Koreans) just as they were mobilizing for war ? She certainly
must have been a credit to her group.
This is absolutely incredible, even for you. You're criticizing a
young
woman for daring to escape from Communist North Korea? What the hell
is
wrong with you? Were you also critical of East Germans who tried to
escape into West Germany?
Nah, just the Korean girl who abandoned her people just as they
were going to war.
You mean as the North Korean Communists were attempting to enslave the
free people of South Korea?
More likely they were trying to prevent the South from succeeding
from the Korean union, much like the US northern states did with the
south during the US civil war.
Why do you think that woman's parents told
her to get to South Korea while she could? Sheesh, are you losing your
mind?
I suppose you were on the side of Benedict Arnold
as he 'escaped' the evil colonial revolutionaries so he could be
amongst King and Crown ?
How strange. There is absolutely no comparison to those two situations.
The comparison is valid, but it would require you to think
outside the box so you may not be able to see it.
Communism isn't an inherently oppressive system.
Show me a Communist regime that has not been oppressive.
Show me ANY government in the history of the world that would
not use force against it's own citizens to 'preserve, protect,
and defend' itself from failure. George Bush would happily
disappear you and your entire family if he felt you were
threatening the US state.
You've been brain-washed by your many years
of living in the US.
Then you should have no problem showing me a Communist regime that was
not oppressive. Put it right here --->
There are no governments anywhere, communist or not, which are
not oppressive to some degree. Governments stay in business by
being THE sovereign power, in case you haven't noticed. I'd say
you're looking at the world in black-and-white (just as Bush and
6 year olds tend to do), while the real world is composed of a
myriad shades of gray.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
24 Nov 2006 11:40:27 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
You have to choose your wars carefully. Why was Vietnam so
strategically important to the U.S.?
It was a battle in the Cold War against the spread of
international
Communism.
We appear to have won the Cold War without the need for
armed conflict. We won because our socio-economic system
beat the crap out of the Communist system, not because we
beat anyone at combat (our armed forces were useful only as
a deterrent). Actual armed conflict appears to have been
unnecessary.
Tell that to the people of South Korea.
Had the circumstances changed
since the time the U.S. became involved and when it
eventually
left?
We left under terms of a peace accord that could have held
up,
just
as the one in Korea has held up -- IF we hadn't lost our
resolve.
What was victory supposed to have looked like.. South Vietnam
successfully separating from North Vietnam.. or were we hoping
for the South to take over the North ?
We were there for the same reason we were in Korea -- to
preserve
liberty and prevent the Communists from forcing their Communism
on
the
free people of the South.
JFK wouldn't have put us into that conflict.
JFK was a young congressman in 1950, and he supported the Truman
Doctrine.
... but in 1964 JFK was the US President, and his plans were to
pull US troops out of south-east asia. Apparently he grew wiser
in those 14 years.
JFK was assassinated in 1963. Can you show some documentation to back
up your claim that he had plans to pull US troops out of Southeast
Asia? Or just show what he was doing before he was assassinated that
would lead you to make that claim.
Plenty of Presidential memos indicate he was favoring a
de-escalation of US involvement in Vietnam.
Then you shouldn't have any trouble coming up with one or two, should
you? Go ahead, back up your claim with some documentation.
It is so easy to find, even someone like you should have no
trouble finding it. JFK wasn't a war-monger, but you are. You're
no student of JFK.
Neither are you apparently, since you couldn't come up with even ONE
FACT to back up your opinion. If it is so easy to find (as you just
claimed), just show me ONE FACT to back up your opinion.
What is farmore interesting is that Johnson subsequently
massively increased our involvement (to the point where
US troops were doing all the fighting),
Not true.
and we STILL lost 10 years later.
We didn't lose militarily. The only thing we lost was our resolve.
The loss of public support IS a military loss.
No, it was not a military loss. Our troops left under terms of the
Paris Peace Accord. It was a negotiated end to the Communist
hostilities against the free people of South Vietnam, just as we have a
neogitated peace with the Communists of North Korea. I suppose you
think Korea was a military loss as well?
We could have stayed
in Vietnam 50 years and still not 'won' in the sense you would have
hoped for. At some point we have to stop being the military agressor.
For Vietnam it was 10 years into it. We'll arrive at the same point
in Iraq.
I see, you're also hoping for another tyrannical dicatorship for Iraq
rather than the free democracy the people of Iraq have voted for.
We
had the Communists stopped for more than two years. I know you're
unaware of that two year time frame, because you think the helicopters
leaving the US Embassy in Saigon was our troops leaving Vietnam. And
you're still wrong.
You still trying to argue inanity,
Inanity? You call facts inanity? Our troops left Vietnam in 1973, but
you think the helicopters leaving the roof of the US Embassy in Saigon
was our troops leaving Vietnam. You're an ignoramous.
Then 30 years later Bush does the same thing, and we're
going to lose again.
With cut and run proponents like you calling for our defeat, you could
turn your hope for our defeat into (what would be for you) a
self-fulfilling prophesy.
The Republicans founded the cut and run strategy, so you'd know
best about this.
No, actually it was the Democratically controlled Congress in 1974 that
voted to cut off funding to the government of South Vietnam. That was,
essentially, a cut and run policy enacted by the Democratically
controlled Congress.
Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting
a different outcome. Stupidity is George Bush thinking he
controls what people in places like Iraq think. No amount of
US Marines training Iraqi 'police' is going to stop a determined
population from taking back their own country
You still don't seem to understand that a majority of the Iraqi people
voted for their new government, and rejected the insurgency. You just
can't seem to get it into your head that the insurgency does not
represent the "determined" population of Iraq.
Forget about 'insurgency' versus 'population' for a minute.
Why? So I can be an ignoramous like you?
Let's talk about bombs, dead Iraqis,
That's right, perpetrated by the terrorist insurgency that you'd like
to equate with freedom fighters. You're an idiot.
and a failure of US
military security in Iraq. Your buddy Bush got us into this.
How you plan on getting us out ?
As I just recently told you, I'm going to wait for the Baker
commission's recommendations.
(perhaps you've forgotten your own American Revolution ?).
Wasn't it your American Revolution as well? Or would you have been a
British loyalist?
It was the war-mongers,
and military industrial complex that needed a battle-ground to
test
their latest weapons. The 'struggle against communism' I think
was
just a convenient idealogical justification,
For the people who were forced to live under Communism, it was
very
real. I once met a woman who had (as a teenager) spent a few days
and
nights walking out of North Korea (into South Korea) just as the
war
was beginning. She had to move at night and hide during the day.
Her
parents had told her to get to the South so she could live in
freedom.
She met a US soldier in South Korea, and he married her and
brought
her
to the US. She had a much different view of the US and its
struggle
with Communism than you do.
I'm sure she was well liked. You say she abandoned her own people
(North Koreans) just as they were mobilizing for war ? She certainly
must have been a credit to her group.
This is absolutely incredible, even for you. You're criticizing a
young
woman for daring to escape from Communist North Korea? What the hell
is
wrong with you? Were you also critical of East Germans who tried to
escape into West Germany?
Nah, just the Korean girl who abandoned her people just as they
were going to war.
You mean as the North Korean Communists were attempting to enslave the
free people of South Korea?
More likely they were trying to prevent the South from succeeding
from the Korean union, much like the US northern states did with the
south during the US civil war.
Uh, the Communists were trying to prevent the free people of the South
from succeeding? Yes, I think it's fair to say that. As for comparing
Communist oppression to the Union's efforts to end slavery in the
Confederate States, I think you're morally challenged.
Why do you think that woman's parents told
her to get to South Korea while she could? Sheesh, are you losing your
mind?
I suppose you were on the side of Benedict Arnold
as he 'escaped' the evil colonial revolutionaries so he could be
amongst King and Crown ?
How strange. There is absolutely no comparison to those two situations.
The comparison is valid, but it would require you to think
outside the box so you may not be able to see it.
The comparison would be a joke if it wasn't such an insult to that
woman who *dared* to escape Communist tyranny. In the first place,
Benedict Arnold was a GENERAL in the colonial army. That woman was a
teenage civilian who was encouraged by her parents to escape to
FREEDOM!!! I can't believe how morally confused you are, and it seems
you're getting worse as time goes on.
Communism isn't an inherently oppressive system.
Show me a Communist regime that has not been oppressive.
Show me ANY government in the history of the world that would
not use force against it's own citizens to 'preserve, protect,
and defend' itself from failure. George Bush would happily
disappear you and your entire family if he felt you were
threatening the US state.
Do you realize the "misunderstood" international Communism you're
defending here was responsible for 100 million deaths during the 20th
century? How can you compare such tyranny to our system? Are you
really that morally confused? Or are you just an ignorant idiot?
You've been brain-washed by your many years
of living in the US.
Then you should have no problem showing me a Communist regime that was
not oppressive. Put it right here --->
There are no governments anywhere, communist or not, which are
not oppressive to some degree. Governments stay in business by
being THE sovereign power, in case you haven't noticed. I'd say
you're looking at the world in black-and-white (just as Bush and
6 year olds tend to do), while the real world is composed of a
myriad shades of gray.
Please show me some of the shades of gray that surround Communism.
Please, enlighten me with your moral confusion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
25 Nov 2006 06:26:21 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
It is so easy to find, even someone like you should have no
trouble finding it. JFK wasn't a war-monger, but you are. You're
no student of JFK.
Neither are you apparently, since you couldn't come up with even ONE
FACT to back up your opinion. If it is so easy to find (as you just
claimed), just show me ONE FACT to back up your opinion.
I found dozens of references to it with a very simple Google
search, but apparently you didn't even try. JFK's opposition
to an escalation in North Vietnam which might have involved
US combat deaths is such common knowledge I'm surprised you
even want to argue it (but that's you Stephne, always wanting
to argue stupid, meaningless things).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
25 Nov 2006 06:40:00 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
It is so easy to find, even someone like you should have no
trouble finding it. JFK wasn't a war-monger, but you are. You're
no student of JFK.
Neither are you apparently, since you couldn't come up with even ONE
FACT to back up your opinion. If it is so easy to find (as you just
claimed), just show me ONE FACT to back up your opinion.
I found dozens of references to it with a very simple Google
search, but apparently you didn't even try.
Why don't you post a link to just one of those dozens, please.
JFK's opposition
to an escalation in North Vietnam which might have involved
US combat deaths is such common knowledge
It's a revision of history. But then much of "common knowledge" is
based on false history, isn't it? For instance, the "common knowledge"
that our troops left Vietnam with their tails between their legs in,
1975, from the rooftop of the US Embassy.
I'm surprised you
even want to argue it (but that's you Stephne, always wanting
to argue stupid, meaningless things).
There's nothing meaningless about the JFK's role in the US involvement
in Vietnam, Randi.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Psycho" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
22 Nov 2006 08:30:33 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
You have to choose your wars carefully. Why was Vietnam so
strategically important to the U.S.?
It was a battle in the Cold War against the spread of
international
Communism.
We appear to have won the Cold War without the need for
armed conflict. We won because our socio-economic system
beat the crap out of the Communist system, not because we
beat anyone at combat (our armed forces were useful only as
a deterrent). Actual armed conflict appears to have been
unnecessary.
Tell that to the people of South Korea.
Had the circumstances changed
since the time the U.S. became involved and when it eventually
left?
We left under terms of a peace accord that could have held up,
just
as the one in Korea has held up -- IF we hadn't lost our resolve.
What was victory supposed to have looked like.. South Vietnam
successfully separating from North Vietnam.. or were we hoping
for the South to take over the North ?
We were there for the same reason we were in Korea -- to preserve
liberty and prevent the Communists from forcing their Communism on
the
free people of the South.
JFK wouldn't have put us into that conflict.
JFK was a young congressman in 1950, and he supported the Truman
Doctrine.
... but in 1964 JFK was the US President, and his plans were to
pull US troops out of south-east asia. Apparently he grew wiser
in those 14 years.
JFK was assassinated in 1963. Can you show some documentation to back
up your claim that he had plans to pull US troops out of Southeast
Asia? Or just show what he was doing before he was assassinated that
would lead you to make that claim.
It was the war-mongers,
and military industrial complex that needed a battle-ground to test
their latest weapons. The 'struggle against communism' I think was
just a convenient idealogical justification,
For the people who were forced to live under Communism, it was very
real. I once met a woman who had (as a teenager) spent a few days and
nights walking out of North Korea (into South Korea) just as the war
was beginning. She had to move at night and hide during the day. Her
parents had told her to get to the South so she could live in freedom.
She met a US soldier in South Korea, and he married her and brought her
to the US. She had a much different view of the US and its struggle
with Communism than you do.
I'm sure she was well liked. You say she abandoned her own people
(North Koreans) just as they were mobilizing for war ? She certainly
must have been a credit to her group.
This is absolutely incredible, even for you. You're criticizing a young
woman for daring to escape from Communist North Korea? What the hell is
wrong with you? Were you also critical of East Germans who tried to
escape into West Germany? Many people who were forced to live under
Communist regimes have escaped -- or tried to escape, sometimes being
shot in the back for their efforts. North Koreans to this day try to
escape North Korea. If they escape into China, and are caught by
Chinese police, they are turned back over to North Korea where they are
first tortured, and then executed. And you're critical of people who
try to escape that system. This is a new low, even for you.
Stevie, you poor pathetic lil' creep, we can't "win" someone's *****
civil war -- that has to be done by the various sovereign factions
involved. All we can contribute is to be their easy targets...and run
around like we've been doing, putting our each lil' fire as a dozen
more are ignited.
Communism is alive and well in Vietnam and your Master, Bushbutt, is
attempting to gain multinational corporate profit from that "evil"
nation of Commies by his recent visit there.
It's also alive and well in China and we do so much business with them
that our "freedom and liberty" ideology frequently gets lost as rich
greedy corporate elitists trudge off to the bank for another hefty
deposit every day.
Get some reality in your lil' head, Stevie -- your blabberings about
how the USA stands for some altruistic philosophy constantly gets
smacked hard every day with the reality of global corporations and
their machinations, many of them US-based, that would laugh in your
pie-eyed ideologically-flushed face.
Dr. Psycho "))
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
22 Nov 2006 08:44:36 PM |
|
|
Dr. Psycho wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
You have to choose your wars carefully. Why was Vietnam so
strategically important to the U.S.?
It was a battle in the Cold War against the spread of
international
Communism.
We appear to have won the Cold War without the need for
armed conflict. We won because our socio-economic system
beat the crap out of the Communist system, not because we
beat anyone at combat (our armed forces were useful only as
a deterrent). Actual armed conflict appears to have been
unnecessary.
Tell that to the people of South Korea.
Had the circumstances changed
since the time the U.S. became involved and when it eventually
left?
We left under terms of a peace accord that could have held up,
just
as the one in Korea has held up -- IF we hadn't lost our resolve.
What was victory supposed to have looked like.. South Vietnam
successfully separating from North Vietnam.. or were we hoping
for the South to take over the North ?
We were there for the same reason we were in Korea -- to preserve
liberty and prevent the Communists from forcing their Communism on
the
free people of the South.
JFK wouldn't have put us into that conflict.
JFK was a young congressman in 1950, and he supported the Truman
Doctrine.
... but in 1964 JFK was the US President, and his plans were to
pull US troops out of south-east asia. Apparently he grew wiser
in those 14 years.
JFK was assassinated in 1963. Can you show some documentation to back
up your claim that he had plans to pull US troops out of Southeast
Asia? Or just show what he was doing before he was assassinated that
would lead you to make that claim.
It was the war-mongers,
and military industrial complex that needed a battle-ground to test
their latest weapons. The 'struggle against communism' I think was
just a convenient idealogical justification,
For the people who were forced to live under Communism, it was very
real. I once met a woman who had (as a teenager) spent a few days and
nights walking out of North Korea (into South Korea) just as the war
was beginning. She had to move at night and hide during the day. Her
parents had told her to get to the South so she could live in freedom.
She met a US soldier in South Korea, and he married her and brought her
to the US. She had a much different view of the US and its struggle
with Communism than you do.
I'm sure she was well liked. You say she abandoned her own people
(North Koreans) just as they were mobilizing for war ? She certainly
must have been a credit to her group.
This is absolutely incredible, even for you. You're criticizing a young
woman for daring to escape from Communist North Korea? What the hell is
wrong with you? Were you also critical of East Germans who tried to
escape into West Germany? Many people who were forced to live under
Communist regimes have escaped -- or tried to escape, sometimes being
shot in the back for their efforts. North Koreans to this day try to
escape North Korea. If they escape into China, and are caught by
Chinese police, they are turned back over to North Korea where they are
first tortured, and then executed. And you're critical of people who
try to escape that system. This is a new low, even for you.
Stevie, you poor pathetic lil' creep, we can't "win" someone's *****
civil war --
Since the paragraph preceding your reply dealt with Korea, it sure
looks to me as if we managed to keep South Korea free of Communism all
these years.
that has to be done by the various sovereign factions
involved. All we can contribute is to be their easy targets...and run
around like we've been doing, putting our each lil' fire as a dozen
more are ignited.
Communism is alive and well in Vietnam
Actually, as I've discussed previously in this group, the former North
Vietnam relies on the former South Vietnam for any prosperity it has
achieved. Southern Vietnam produces most of Vietnam's total economic
output.
and your Master, Bushbutt, is
attempting to gain multinational corporate profit from that "evil"
nation of Commies by his recent visit there.
It's also alive and well in China
Maybe you haven't noticed China is gradually doing away with Communism.
Allowing the people to own private property does not sound like
Communism to me. China is embracing capitalism. Notice they didn't turn
Hong Kong to Communism when they very well could have if they had
wanted to.
<snip remaining blabbering>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Psycho" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
22 Nov 2006 09:00:05 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Dr. Psycho wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
You have to choose your wars carefully. Why was Vietnam so
strategically important to the U.S.?
It was a battle in the Cold War against the spread of
international
Communism.
We appear to have won the Cold War without the need for
armed conflict. We won because our socio-economic system
beat the crap out of the Communist system, not because we
beat anyone at combat (our armed forces were useful only as
a deterrent). Actual armed conflict appears to have been
unnecessary.
Tell that to the people of South Korea.
Had the circumstances changed
since the time the U.S. became involved and when it eventually
left?
We left under terms of a peace accord that could have held up,
just
as the one in Korea has held up -- IF we hadn't lost our resolve.
What was victory supposed to have looked like.. South Vietnam
successfully separating from North Vietnam.. or were we hoping
for the South to take over the North ?
We were there for the same reason we were in Korea -- to preserve
liberty and prevent the Communists from forcing their Communism on
the
free people of the South.
JFK wouldn't have put us into that conflict.
JFK was a young congressman in 1950, and he supported the Truman
Doctrine.
... but in 1964 JFK was the US President, and his plans were to
pull US troops out of south-east asia. Apparently he grew wiser
in those 14 years.
JFK was assassinated in 1963. Can you show some documentation to back
up your claim that he had plans to pull US troops out of Southeast
Asia? Or just show what he was doing before he was assassinated that
would lead you to make that claim.
It was the war-mongers,
and military industrial complex that needed a battle-ground to test
their latest weapons. The 'struggle against communism' I think was
just a convenient idealogical justification,
For the people who were forced to live under Communism, it was very
real. I once met a woman who had (as a teenager) spent a few days and
nights walking out of North Korea (into South Korea) just as the war
was beginning. She had to move at night and hide during the day. Her
parents had told her to get to the South so she could live in freedom.
She met a US soldier in South Korea, and he married her and brought her
to the US. She had a much different view of the US and its struggle
with Communism than you do.
I'm sure she was well liked. You say she abandoned her own people
(North Koreans) just as they were mobilizing for war ? She certainly
must have been a credit to her group.
This is absolutely incredible, even for you. You're criticizing a young
woman for daring to escape from Communist North Korea? What the hell is
wrong with you? Were you also critical of East Germans who tried to
escape into West Germany? Many people who were forced to live under
Communist regimes have escaped -- or tried to escape, sometimes being
shot in the back for their efforts. North Koreans to this day try to
escape North Korea. If they escape into China, and are caught by
Chinese police, they are turned back over to North Korea where they are
first tortured, and then executed. And you're critical of people who
try to escape that system. This is a new low, even for you.
Stevie, you poor pathetic lil' creep, we can't "win" someone's *****
civil war --
Since the paragraph preceding your reply dealt with Korea, it sure
looks to me as if we managed to keep South Korea free of Communism all
these years.
that has to be done by the various sovereign factions
involved. All we can contribute is to be their easy targets...and run
around like we've been doing, putting our each lil' fire as a dozen
more are ignited.
Communism is alive and well in Vietnam
Actually, as I've discussed previously in this group, the former North
Vietnam relies on the former South Vietnam for any prosperity it has
achieved. Southern Vietnam produces most of Vietnam's total economic
output.
and your Master, Bushbutt, is
attempting to gain multinational corporate profit from that "evil"
nation of Commies by his recent visit there.
It's also alive and well in China
Maybe you haven't noticed China is gradually doing away with Communism.
Allowing the people to own private property does not sound like
Communism to me. China is embracing capitalism. Notice they didn't turn
Hong Kong to Communism when they very well could have if they had
wanted to.
And, oh yeah, oppressive communism giving way to manipulative immoral
capitalism should improve our relations on the planet. heeheehee...when
they hold free elections for the top heirarachial positions there then
I'll be sort of impressed, but not entirely hopeful.
If you haven't noticed, the USA is only a player in a multinational
corporate game where the real power lies beyond ideological or
nationalistic borders -- where pathetic lil' creeps like yourself are
still defending.
Few at the top care about your Boy Scout philosophy, Stevie, but prefer
instead to make their greedy deals anywhere and with anyone they can to
keep expanding their personal and corporate influence.
It's lil' kids like yourself that they happily use to help them to that
end -- fighting their wars, sucking public money into big contracts,
etc.
Hong Kong? You mean the former British-owned piece of real estate taken
during the Opium Wars of long ago? It's just a conveyance of corporate
profit -- and it doesn't matter whether the Commies or the Capitalists
are the benefactors.
Get real, Stevie ... sink or swim with the hard reality of nutty human
behavior on this mudball, of which you make a tiny insignificant
contribution to in your lifetime. If you want more, rejoin the military
and wait for the next heroic battle against evil that's sure to surface
after Bush's failed Mideast adventurism.
Dr. Psycho
<snip remaining blabbering>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "EOD" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
18 Nov 2006 02:02:47 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
EOD wrote:
... South Vietnam whose democratic capital was then called
Saigon. Its shaky government collapsed quickly despite over
11 years of intense US military training.
Let's see, the Communist government of North Vietnam was fully funded
by their allies (USSR and China), while the free government of South
Vietnam had the rug pulled out from under it by the Congress of its
major ally. What did you think was going to happen under those
circumstances?
This tasty morsel has been prepared and served just specially for your
consumption --
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-061117bush-silva,1,3133326.story?coll=chi-news-hed
Bon apetit !!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
18 Nov 2006 11:28:37 AM |
|
|
EOD wrote:
11-18-06
1:33 EDT
Breaking...
Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam
Hanoi, Vietnam -- (AFP) -- President Bush rode in a bullet-proof limo
triumphantly down the main street of Ho Chi Minh City Friday, declaring
that "I finally made it to Vietnam."
Over 30 years ago, Bush signed with the Texas Air National Guard to
keep from serving in war-torn South Vietnam whose democratic capital
was then called Saigon. Its shaky government collapsed quickly despite
over 11 years of intense US military training.
And now over 30 years later he arrives in Vietnam to escape US voters'
fury over his failed Iraq policy.
"It's great to be here and I just wanna tell ya that Laura and I love
these lil' gooks," said Bush.
"I think they're kinda' cute and cuddly things," said Mrs. Bush.
Surprisingly, he didn't land in a F-16 and declare 'Mission
Accomplished'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "EOD" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam |
18 Nov 2006 01:50:14 PM |
|
|
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
EOD wrote:
11-18-06
1:33 EDT
Breaking...
Bush Finally Makes It To Vietnam
Hanoi, Vietnam -- (AFP) -- President Bush rode in a bullet-proof limo
triumphantly down the main street of Ho Chi Minh City Friday, declaring
that "I finally made it to Vietnam."
Over 30 years ago, Bush signed with the Texas Air National Guard to
keep from serving in war-torn South Vietnam whose democratic capital
was then called Saigon. Its shaky government collapsed quickly despite
over 11 years of intense US military training.
And now over 30 years later he arrives in Vietnam to escape US voters'
fury over his failed Iraq policy.
"It's great to be here and I just wanna tell ya that Laura and I love
these lil' gooks," said Bush.
"I think they're kinda' cute and cuddly things," said Mrs. Bush.
Surprisingly, he didn't land in a F-16 and declare 'Mission
Accomplished'.
At the time, Americans were told that the USS Abraham Lincoln was too
far out to sea for Bush to use a helicopter for his grand visit.
Later, it was admitted that a helicopter could've brought the
victorious Commander-In-Chief to the deck (supposedly with his flight
uniform on?).
And, amazingly, the White House press secretary said the "Mission
Accomplished" banner wasn't the White House's idea, but the military's.
And...then...well, it just goes on and on...doesn't it?
Dr. Psycho
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
