JS & Lee
The two warriors that were there. Didn't know Walter Cronkite was
a general? Why did President
Johnson announced so dramatically not to run for a 2nd term? Who
ordered Napalm, Agent Orange
and all that bomb tonnage to be dropped on a poor, former
colonial, agricultural country? How much
lives and costly military equipment did we invest in a losing
war? Why were so many Americans
demonstrating against it including Mohamad Alli and Jane Fonda?
PR is why we lost the war? Didn't
you read the lying news media? When you two all knowing vets are
demonizing no one else should disagree? In my humble opinion the
two of you brain washed re-writing history idiots are so full of it.
Think, think, think.
Comrade B
In a message dated 8/17/2014 10:31:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
schalestock@xxxxxxxx writes:
Stanley,
Your are so full of it. Where do you get off telling Lee and
I who were actually in combat in Vietnam that we don't know
what we are talking about. Not to mention your own
contradictions. Even the NVA leadership acknowledged we were
winning the military battles. It was the PR campaign after
TET that defeated us when the bumbling old geezer Walter
Cronkite announced to the American people the war was lost.
Your problem (aside from being uneducated and closed minded)
is that you insist your prejudices are reality. I agree with
Lee's analysis. We should never have gotten involved there in
the first place. But that's a lot different than talking
about what actually took place on the ground. And it's sure
as hell more on the mark than yours.
JS
---------- Original Message ----------
From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender
"Sblumen123@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: Viet Nam, success or failure?
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 22:06:27 -0400 (EDT)
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@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@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@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>
To: 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@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>
____________________________________________________________
*Apple's new iPhone?*
Look closely. Because as you might guess, Apple is hiding
something…
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3132/53f0bc84a4b893c840debst03vuc>fool.com
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3132/53f0bc84a4b893c840debst03vuc>
