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

From: "D.J.J. Ring, Jr." <n1ea@xxxxxxxx>
To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:54:35 -0400
You can blame someone else for hurting you.

Not all that happens is your choice or responsibility.

To think so suggests that the speaker has serious inordinate self-esteem
problems which if can become worse, even life threatening, if left
untreated.

73

DR
On Aug 20, 2014 1:37 PM, "Ron Ristad" <ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Do you blame the Steinberg Gang? Life is a struggle. That's how they
> managed to stay in power and keep their jobs.
>
> One thing I know is that you can never solve your problems by blaming
> others. The responsibility for your life rests 100% on your shoulders. You
> can't blame the rich because you are poor. You cannot blame the doctor who
> botched your surgery or poisoned you with pharmaceuticals if you did it
> voluntarily. Nearly every problem a person can have results from a bad
> decision they made. The problem with socialism is that it attempts to
> remove freedom of choice and place that burden on somebody else and that is
> a prescription for failure. If a socialist government were sincere then
> they would teach people self enpowerment. Instead they take away their
> freedom of choice and make them dependent, aka enslavement.
>
> -RR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "D.J.J. Ring, Jr."
> Sent: Aug 20, 2014 11:00 AM
> To: "sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
> Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: Viet Nam, success or failure?
>
> 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@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@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@xxxxxxx for DMARC" <
>> 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@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@xxxxxxx for
>>> DMARC" <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@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@xxxxxxx for
>>>> DMARC" <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@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@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@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@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> Stan,
>>>>> On what planet were you living during the Vietnam unpleasantry?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/16/2014 7:06 PM, (Redacted sender 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@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> <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>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
References:
- [sparkscoffee] Re: Viet Nam, success or failure?
  - From: Ron Ristad
[sparkscoffee] Re: Viet Nam, success or failure?

Other related posts:
