[sparkscoffee] Re: Viet Nam, success or failure?

From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Sblumen123@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:19:39 -0400 (EDT)
DR
No, so what?
 
Comrade B
 
 
In a message dated 8/31/2014 11:27:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
n1ea@xxxxxxxx writes:

Did you know Bill Steinberg didn't have a radio officer's license nor a  
radiotelegraph license? 
73
DR
On Aug 31, 2014 12:41 PM, "Redacted sender _Sblumen123@aol.com_ 
(mailto:Sblumen123@xxxxxxx)  for DMARC" <_dmarc-noreply@freelists.org_ 
(mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) >  wrote:


DR, RR
Too much for me to respond to but if you two are happy, stay that  way.
 
Comrade B
 
 
In a message dated 8/20/2014 1:01:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
_n1ea@arrl.net_ (mailto:n1ea@xxxxxxxx)  writes:

 
 
 
 
 
I think you have it exactly right.


Workers - especially  talented ones - organizing is a smart thing to do.


Wasn't it  odd that both ARA and ROU worked so that we could not find our 
co-workers  like the Engineers and Mates could as we worked alone!  In the 
days  of Internet it's easy to access the FCC database of  licensees.


That's how we found out that Bill Steinberg had no  FCC license.


But the ARA Constitution did not require  one!

73

DR



On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Ron Ristad <_ristad@sprynet.com_ 
(mailto:ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx) > wrote:


 
DR,
The  top 1% have always had, and will most likely continue to have the vast 
 majority of wealth in every society. They are better and more dedicated  
at the game of accumulating wealth. Most have no moral values. They form  an 
elite club. Not only do they control almost all of the wealth but  they have 
all of the power and they know how to use it.

The  bottom majority will always be poor, or relatively poor, because they  
are stupid, have no special talent, have no motivation and spend  whatever 
money they have as soon as they get it, or worse given the  chance they will 
borrow money to buy things they don't really need and  can't afford, thus 
guaranteeing that they will remain poor all of their  lives. Like the top 1% 
most have no moral values. Many come from broken  homes where they were 
never taught moral values and many simply cannot  afford them. Is it theft for 
a 
starving man to steal a loaf of  bread?

Capitalism is simply the natural order of the economy. It  comes about 
after socialism, communism or facism has failed and the  economy has collapsed.

Obviously communism is spreading since it  has even taken over America, a 
country where capitalism has had its  greatest achievement in bringing wealth 
and prosperity to so many  people. Trade unions were responsible for 
distributing much of the  wealth in America, but skilled trade unions should 
not 
be confused with  communist labor unions and especially government labor 
unions which  undermine the economy since they do nothing to produce wealth in 
the  economy.

The bottom majority will usually support socialism  because they are 
stupid, irresponsible and incapable of managing their  money or their lives. 
Many 
intellectuals also support communism because  while they may be geniuses and 
of great value to society, their heads  are always in the clouds and they 
are not very good at managing their  money or their lives.

The great capitalist society America has  been subverted by socialists. The 
economy will eventually collapse when  the socialists run out of other 
peoples' money and hopefully there will  be a return to freedom and prosperity. 
Our Constitution and Bill of  Rights will be our savior. Even though they 
are being trampled on right  now by the socialists as they desperately try to 
maintain power, the  words and ideas are for all time.

-RR  
 



-----Original  Message----- 
From: "D.J.J. Ring, Jr." 
Sent: Aug 19,  2014 10:30 PM 
To: _sparkscoffee@freelists.org_ (mailto:sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)  
Subject:  [sparkscoffee] Re: Viet Nam, success or failure? 

Socialism needs many middle class dollars to pay for socialism. 
Head commies are richest, have yachts, whisky, girls. 
73 
DR 
On Aug 19, 2014 6:40 PM, "Redacted sender _Sblumen123@aol.com_ 
(mailto:Sblumen123@xxxxxxx)  for DMARC" <_dmarc-noreply@freelists.org_ 
(mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) > wrote:


DR
Like China, the communist government of Vietnam manuvers which  ever way 
they think is best for their
country. Adopting some Capitalist policies doesn't mean that  they 
abandoned their basic socialist system.
 
Stanley
 
 
In a message dated 8/19/2014 6:09:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight  Time, 
_n1ea@arrl.net_ (mailto:n1ea@xxxxxxxx)  writes:

Read up about Vietnam economy.  They now have changed  their economic and 
social policy to support independant ownership  of businesses.  I also showed 
how the Viet bank has minority  ownership by two Japanese banks.  They have 
modified their  foundation documents to reflect official government support 
of  this. 
Communism that allows private ownership of businesses.   China is the same 
as it adopts Hong Komg economy inside more and  more. 
DR
On Aug 19, 2014 12:51 PM, "Redacted sender  _Sblumen123@aol.com_ 
(mailto:Sblumen123@xxxxxxx)  for DMARC" <_dmarc-noreply@freelists.org_ 
(mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) > wrote:


DR
You are not the one I challenged, RR the gloom and doomer  who has a closed 
mind when it comes to socialisim and so do you.  Which email? Repeat it. 
Haven't you noticed the big business  deals are by State Owned which is 
socialism, not capitalism  private owned and controlled. Wake up and think, 
think, 
think  before posting.

Comrade B
 
 
In a message dated 8/18/2014 10:55:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight  Time, 
_n1ea@arrl.net_ (mailto:n1ea@xxxxxxxx)  writes:

Vietnam and Red China have abandoned communist economics in  favor  of 
capitalism.   Didn't you see my  email. 
DR 
On Aug 18, 2014 4:27 PM, "Redacted  sender _Sblumen123@aol.com_ 
(mailto:Sblumen123@xxxxxxx)  for DMARC" <_dmarc-noreply@freelists.org_ 
(mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) > wrote:


Dummy
WW11, when the hell are you going to prove that little  old Communist 
Vietnam is a failure??? Not
responding proves you are full of you know what.
 
Comrade B
 
 
In a message dated 8/18/2014 12:51:35 P.M. Eastern  Daylight Time, 
_ristad@sprynet.com_ (mailto:ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx)  writes:

When was the last time the U.S. won a war?  

-RR  


-----Original  Message----- 
From: "Lee, NI7I" 
Sent: Aug  18, 2014 10:35 AM 
To: _sparkscoffee@freelists.org_ (mailto:sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)   
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: Viet Nam, success or  failure?  

No Stan, the generals and admirals all knew how to  prosecute the war.  
They simply werent allowed to  do it.  Had you read the accounts you would know 
 this.  It's rather
obvious that your memory is  selective.  I dont blame the media, I blame 
the  administration(s) that told the generals how to fight  the war.  Had the 
leaders in the field
been  allowed to win the war, they would have.  It's not  "my way".  It 
just happens to be the way it  was.

Lee


On 8/17/2014 11:26 PM,  (Redacted sender _Sblumen123@aol.com_ 
(mailto:Sblumen123@xxxxxxx)  for DMARC)  wrote:


Lee
You say you was there, I wasn't but I read the  accounts in the news media 
which we don't trust.
The lying news media says we were driven out, not  just walked out, on 
helicopters helter skelter
in dissaray. As a freightend GI you knew better  then the Generals where to 
drop th napalm, agent
orange and tons of regular bombs doesn't sound  right to humble me? Blame 
the news media. Any
way have it your way, no skin off my back.
 
Comrade B 
,
 
In a message dated 8/16/2014 11:02:52 P.M.  Eastern Daylight Time, 
_pixiehat@charter.net_ (mailto:pixiehat@xxxxxxxxxxx)  writes:

Stan,
On what planet were you living during  the Vietnam unpleasantry?  



On  8/16/2014 7:06 PM, (Redacted sender _Sblumen123@aol.com_ 
(mailto:Sblumen123@xxxxxxx)  for DMARC)  wrote:


Lee
Remember after the war some American Officer  told a Viet Nam Officer that 
we really won the  turning point
Tiet (don't recall the spelling) offensive  and the reply was yes but it is 
irrelevent. Sorry  but I consider your
analysis as irrelevent. Don't be such a big  shot strategist, no one of 
importance after all  this time says
what you say. We tried like hell to win and  then an honorable way out and 
we lost.
 
Comrade B
 
 
In a message dated 8/16/2014 9:20:36 P.M.  Eastern Daylight Time, 
_pixiehat@charter.net_ (mailto:pixiehat@xxxxxxxxxxx)   writes:

Stan,
Viet Nam didnt really defeat  anybody.  They persevered.  The war  was too 
expensive for France to continue and  they didnt consider the possible prize
was  worth the expense.  There were a number of  reasons we left (gave up). 
 Our generals  and admirals were not given the tools they  needed to 
prosecute the "police  action".  The rules of engagement were  stacked 
against "winning" from the get go.   I argue that we should not have been
there in  the first place.  It wasnt our war.   However, It was a war we 
could have "won".   All those bombs/napalm/and agent orange, were  simply
put in the wrong place and not in  enough quantity.  Of course, had we put  
enough resources in that theater to make a  difference, China would
have probably mached  us bullet for bullet.  I doubt the  Vietnamese would 
have survived the war.  I  was there.  I went to bed every night  scared
shitless.  I'm glad we pulled out  and I'm glad I managed to  survive.    
I'm glad Vietnam  survived and that the people are beginning to  prosper.
Hopefully they will eventually have  the government that they deserve.  
Those in  power now will continue to do a fine job untill  their prosperity
and that of their  constituency conflict.  I dont see us  "re-invading".  I 
do see them having  another civil war or coup.  It's a  beautiful country 
and
seven million  visitors  is just a tip of the ice  berg.

Lee


On 8/16/2014 2:17  PM, (Redacted sender _Sblumen123@aol.com_ 
(mailto:Sblumen123@xxxxxxx)  for DMARC)  wrote:


My dear JS
Our house pseudo intellectual, using  demonizing words out of thin air  
against a small communist country who the world  respects for winning a war 
against a Capitalist  France and USA throwing napalm, agent orange and  more 
bombs then dropped during all of WW11.  (See last paragraph below). Did a 
little birdie  tell you or you were there or know someone who  was there or 
what? Did you read that close to 7  million tourists visits Vietnam yearly? Did 
you  read DR's Wikipedia and figure from that, that  Vietanm is led by 
corrupt, vicious,  deadly communist leaders who are not trying  to build a 
better 
country for their people and  it's future but only to make themselves  
rich? Perhaps we should re-invade them  and be welcomed as saviors this  time? 
Advice, don't demonize when you don't  know. Think, think, think.
 
Stanley
 
 
In a message dated 8/14/2014 11:47:25 A.M.  Eastern Daylight Time, 
_schalestock@juno.com_ (mailto:schalestock@xxxxxxxx)   writes:

Lee,
 
You really nailed it. I remember my dad (a  ww2 vet) saying it was a civil 
war right from  the start. And of course, those of us that were  over there 
had no doubt about the corruption of  the South Vietnam government and the 
ARVN.
 
I recently watched an interesting  documentary about LBJ with live videos 
of him  talking to McNamara. It appears that he saw his  conundrum as fearing 
the Chinese would come in  if he turned us loose to go up north on one hand 
 and fearing he would be accused of " losing"  Vietnam if he did nothing.  
Naturally, the  end result was was a micro managed cluster fuck  that ended 
in our defeat.    But  it does show the consequences of electing an  
uneducated, self serving ignoramus who didn't  even know about the thousand 
year 
old animosity  between Vietnam and China.  There is no  doubt the Vietnamese 
would have fought the  Chinese just as hard as they did us had China  tried 
to come into the war.
 
And, as you point out, capitalism has no  corner on corruption. The 
communist regime in  Vietnam is not only corrupt, its vicious and  deadly to 
its 
own people. So it goes in Stan's  communist Utopian fantasy world.
 
JS


---------- Original Message  ----------
From: "Lee, NI7I" _<pixiehat@xxxxxxxxxxx>_ (mailto:pixiehat@xxxxxxxxxxx) 
To:  _sparkscoffee@freelists.org_ (mailto:sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) 
Subject:  [sparkscoffee] Re: Viet Nam, success or  failure?
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 08:29:55  -0700

Stan, you would have a good argument if you  didnt insist on inserting half 
truths (which are  worse than lies).  The US wasnt trying to  impose 
anything on viet nam.  
What they  were doing was interfering with a civil  war.  There was already 
a "capitalist  democracy" in place in south viet nam.   With our assistance 
it became more
corrupt  than it was and, again with our assistance, in  failed.  Now they 
have a "capitalist  democracy" of their own making.  I dont  think you could 
really call what
they have in  that country communism.  It's just  adifferent sort of 
capitalism.  And, from  what I understand, is no less corrupt than our  country.

Lee
NI7I


On  8/13/2014 7:16 PM, (Redacted sender _Sblumen123@aol.com_ 
(mailto:Sblumen123@xxxxxxx)  for DMARC)  wrote:

RR and DR and JS and etc.
You say you have an open mind and you know  of no socialist country that 
has succeeded  excluding China?
How about Viet Nam, isn't that a country  run by communists? It was a 
colony of Captalist  France until
it won it's independence and then again  when Captalist America tried  to 
impose a Captalist Democracy  on it and failed and it won the admiration of  
the world even by many here? Today we free  trade with it and it is even a 
tourist  destination including soldiers who fought  against them. Remember 
the unkown Spanish author  of the saying, 'A wise man changes his mind  often, 
a fool never'. You can call me the fool  but as wise men 
where do you stand?
 
Comrade B
 
   
 
 

____________________________________________________________
_Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile  Broadband. Try  it._ 
(http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2)
[sparkscoffee] Re: Viet Nam, success or failure?

Other related posts:
