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

From: "D.J.J. Ring, Jr." <n1ea@xxxxxxxx>
To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 00:02:38 -0400
Even if 99% of problems are the result of person's choices, there is 1%
that are not.

That's why we have tort law, to restore to us what others have injured.

The fault of a criminal act is the action of the criminal perpitrator.  The
fault of an automobile accident caused by other's negligance, is caused by
that person.

You are not responsible for everything that happens, RR.

You can certainly blame others for hurting you if it is there fault.

That's why we have tort law and insurance.

Thinking otherwise is simply insane.

73

DR
On Aug 20, 2014 11:03 PM, "Ron Ristad" <ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> "You can blame someone else for hurting you." That's exactly what I mean.
> Grow up. You sound like a three year old.
>
> 99% of the problems I hear from other people suffering from could easily
> have been avoided had they made different choices.
>
> If somebody breaks into my house and robs me whose fault is it? The
> criminal who breaks into my house is just doing what criminals do. Whose
> fault is it if I have no means to protect my property and defend myself?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "D.J.J. Ring, Jr."
> Sent: Aug 20, 2014 7:54 PM
> To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: Viet Nam, success or failure?
>
> 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:
