King: Cut and Running Liberal

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently, one of them wrote these words: "Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the hearts of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism."

If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. It' will become clear that our minimal expectation is to occupy it as an American colony, and men will not refrain from thinking that our maximum hope is to goad China into a war so that we may bomb her nuclear installations.

The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of her people.

In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing the war to a halt.

Sound eerily familiar?

(Hint: Replace "Vietnam" with "Iraq" and "China" with "Iran")

I call upon our heroes like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh to tell Americans the truth that the Liberal media doesn't want you to hear!

 

[Puppycow]

While an argument can still perhaps be made with a straight face that, somehow, in the long run, something good might come out of the Iraq War (at a very dear price), I think that History can now conclude firmly and finally that the war in Vietnam was a terrible waste, and that nothing good for either America or Vietnam came of it. Certainly nothing that can weigh against its terrible cost.

I hope will will not be so quick to forget the lessons next time.

 

[proxywar]

Whose really to blame for that out come? I'd say the hippies who didn't let us finish the job properly. Sigon fell hippies rejoiced cambodians were slaughtered on a vast scale by pol pot. Something good could of came out of vietnam something called democracy Instead a real killing machine named Communism tookover. We never lost one battle in vietnam it was winnable.

Ho Chi Minh said, "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

^ SO TRUE!


Bui Tin: Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.

^ SO TRUE!


Bui Tin:We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

^SO TRUE!


"Q: How could the Americans have won the war?

A: Bui Tin: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted Gen. William Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war."


So maybe having a few more 'boots on the ground in Iraq to keep the Iranians, Syrians and Saudis out of the country and cutting the jihadis' supplies might have been a good idea. If, that is, we could have scrounged the additional troops that were probably required and done it early on. Vietnam was not a quagmire. It was defeat snatched from the jaws of victory when we gave up and said, Goodbye, Saigon.


Turkish general once exclaimed: The problem with having the United States for an ally is that you never know when the Americans are going to stab themselves in the back

No one defeats America like America defeats itself.

 

[coalesce]

I call upon our heroes like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh to tell Americans the truth that the Liberal media doesn't want you to hear!

Who is stopping them from doing it?

Michael

 

[fuelair]

Whose really to blame for that out come? I'd say the hippies who didn't let us finish the job properly. Sigon fell hippies rejoiced cambodians were slaughtered on a vast scale by pol pot. Something good could of came out of vietnam something called democracy Instead a real killing machine named Communism tookover. We never lost one battle in vietnam it was winnable.

Ho Chi Minh said, "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

^ SO TRUE!


Bui Tin: Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.

^ SO TRUE!


Bui Tin:We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

^SO TRUE!


"Q: How could the Americans have won the war?

A: Bui Tin: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted Gen. William Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war."


So maybe having a few more 'boots on the ground in Iraq to keep the Iranians, Syrians and Saudis out of the country and cutting the jihadis' supplies might have been a good idea. If, that is, we could have scrounged the additional troops that were probably required and done it early on. Vietnam was not a quagmire. It was defeat snatched from the jaws of victory when we gave up and said, Goodbye, Saigon.


Turkish general once exclaimed: The problem with having the United States for an ally is that you never know when the Americans are going to stab themselves in the back

No one defeats America like America defeats itself.

And your unit and location in RVN was? Mine was 9th Med Lab, next to 23rd Evac Hospital, down the street from the LBJ in Long Binh. And my experience says you are piling it high and deep.

 

[Almo]

"Q: How could the Americans have won the war?

A: Bui Tin: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted Gen. William Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war."

And we then have a situation where we're over in Laos, and things get more complicated. I can't say I know what would have happened, but saying it's as simple as "cutting the HCMT" is silly.

 

[proxywar]

I didn't say it. Bui Tin the former colonel of the North Vietnamese army did.

 

[Puppycow]

Whose really to blame for that out come? I'd say the hippies who didn't let us finish the job properly.

Sure. A convienent scapegoat.

Sigon fell hippies rejoiced cambodians were slaughtered on a vast scale by pol pot.

First of all, you are conflating Cambodia with Vietnam. And it turns out that the Communist Vietnamese invaded Cambodia to put a stop to it.

The Killing Fields were a number of sites in Cambodia where large numbers of people were killed and buried by the Communist regime Khmer Rouge, which had ruled the country since 1975. The massacres ended in 1979, when Communist Vietnam invaded the country, which at that time was officially called Democratic Kampuchea, and toppled the Khmer Rouge regime.

Something good could of came out of vietnam something called democracy

If there was actually a democratic regime with popular support in South Vietnam to defend. What actually existed was a disfunctional military government which kept changing leaders in a series of coups.

Instead a real killing machine named Communism tookover.

They seem to have mellowed out quite a bit since foreigners stopped meddling in their affairs. Today you can even visit Vietnam, and while it's poor, they are beginning to develop economically. I believe that like China they are on a path that will eventually lead to liberal democracy. Engagement and trade are the long-term solutions. Military interference is counterproductive.

 

[Puppycow]

I didn't say it. Bui Tin the former colonel of the North Vietnamese army did.

This is an argument from authority. Those statements are all questionable and irrelevant red herrings.

 

[iAmerican]

MLK: Whig Jeffersonian

Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence
Sound eerily familiar?

(Hint: Replace "Vietnam" with "Iraq" and "China" with "Iran")

I call upon our heroes like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh to tell Americans the truth that the Liberal media doesn't want you to hear!

"A Time to Break Silence" got Dr. King killed one year later, to the day, because he included these words:

"A true revolution of values will soon look easily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: " This is not just.""

"The landed gentry of Latin America" is the Spanish and Portuguese branch of the Roman Catholic Latifundium.

Dr. King was explaining, from a Whig Jeffersonian position, his opposition to our presence in the French South East Asian branch of the same Roman Catholic Latifundium where we were duped, by Cardinals Spellman and Cushing, and CFR-head, and Vatican-banker David Rockefeller, into fighting the Nationalist, Jefferson-admirer Ho Chi Minh on behalf of the five percent Roman Catholic ruling false-elite, which owned 95% of that country's wealth, based on the "Northwoods" Gulf of Tonkin Hoax.

He was, of course, "connecting the dots" for Thomas Jefferson's Whig Historical interpretation, which recognized Rome, "the real Anti-Christ," as "an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandising their oppressors in Church and State; that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity..."

The "cry of infidelity" is now raised here against all Children of Our Founders willing to speak truth of the treason of the Anti-Christ's present faction, which murdered Dr. King for having the "temerity" to tell the truth, President Kennedy for having the "temerity" to order us out of Vietnam, sent us to die in Vietnam (only 120 of us had died in SE Asia before Dealey Plaza), and has now committed 9-11 for more false war, oil, heroin, the Saudi rulers and, unfortunately, a corrupt faction within the State of Israel untroubled that they have chosen allies whose faction was responsible for the Holocaust.

Dr. King was an American Prophet. Like Our Founder Thomas Jefferson's, his words are inimical to the Anti-Christ. Had Rome the chance Jefferson would have been assassinated. As it happened they were only able to murder his nephew, Meriwether Lewis, while he attempted to report to his uncle at the White House of America's enemy ensconced in their St. Louis basecamp, now so powerful in Washington, rightwing radio...and on "debunker" blogs.

 

[tomwaits]

(Hint: Replace "Vietnam" with "Iraq" and "China" with "Iran")

There are Buddhist leaders in Iraq?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

There are Buddhist leaders in Iraq?

lol

(Actually, I know there are some that go to the Middle East)

 

[proxywar]

Sure. A convienent scapegoat.

When your enemy gives thanks to them as I demostrated how can you deny it? It's not coming from the U.S. mouth piece, It came from Bui Tin and Ho Chi Minh themselves. They basically gave thanks to them for the win. I didn't pull those quotes out of my ass.

First of all, you are conflating Cambodia with Vietnam. And it turns out that the Communist Vietnamese invaded Cambodia to put a stop to it.
If there was actually a democratic regime with popular support in South Vietnam to defend. What actually existed was a disfunctional military government which kept changing leaders in a series of coups.

So it's ok for North veitnamese to intervene but not America in vietnam? I'm not confussed. I'm giving you the negative after affects of U.S. withdrawl from communist regions.

After Indochina's "liberation" by Soviet-backed North Vietnam, the North Vietnamese-backed Pathet Lao in Laos, and the Chinese-backed Pol Pot in Cambodia, at least two million were murdered by these "liberators." Millions more endured imprisonment and persecution, while hundreds of thousands fled across the seas, thousands of whom would drown. To the extent the Religious Left will ever reference the horrors of Indochina after the U.S. withdrawal, it will fault the U.S. exclusively for causing what the U.S. expended 50,000 American lives in trying to prevent. North Vietnamese and its Viet Cong allies were attacking South Vietnamese and U.S. forces from base camps in Cambodia. The North Vietnamese also hoped to establish North Vietnam's control over Cambodia with the rest of Indochina." http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=37E0E747-F486-4128-8709-1463739F3A8D

If the north Vietnamese would have lost the Vietnam war they would not have entered Cambodia and millions of cambodians would not have endured imprisonment and persection, hundreds of thousands would not been exodus, and thousands would not of died.

perhaps I didn't explain myself properly enough the frist time.

They seem to have mellowed out quite a bit since foreigners stopped meddling in their affairs. Today you can even visit Vietnam, and while it's poor, they are beginning to develop economically. I believe that like China they are on a path that will eventually lead to liberal democracy. Engagement and trade are the long-term solutions. Military interference is counterproductive.

Liberal democracy? Maybe. I tend to think a more oxymoron system like a hybrid capatialist economy and Commuinist rule like in china.

The real reason we intervened was to stop what was really going on a Communist expansionism back by the USSR. South-Vietnamese became our proxy-regime against Communist expansionism which was proped up, armed, and funded by the Ussr. This proxy-war was the direct result of the fall out after world war 2. The Ussr nor America trusted each other. Ussr was using their communist north-Vietnamese in a proxy-war against our democratic south-vietamese and later us to gain strategical postioning of that region.

We're all aware of bush's: "Vietnam's membership in the ASEAN Free Trade Area and entry into force of the US-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement in December 2001 have led to even more rapid changes in Vietnam's trade and economic regime" Cited from: CIA world factbook. How about a thanks america?

However, the point of the thread is back then two super-powers were in a cold war, it can be counterproductive but not per se the hippies made it even moreso counterproductive and also allowed the cambodians to suffer the after affects of our departure. We could of won that war and those after affects could of been prevented.

 

[proxywar]

This is an argument from authority. Those statements are all questionable and irrelevant red herrings.

I guess expert engineers who back up the offical 9/11 story is an argument from authority as well? Common now, we both know they're not wrong.It's not a redherring, I didn't devert attention away from anything.

 

[PAC]

I was a student during the worst of Vietnam. I was horrified that my country could be so foolish, ignorant, self-important (The Best and The Brightest)
I thought that the one good to come from Vietnam was that we would never go down this road again. How ignorant I was! Here we are again only this time with eyes wide open.

America = No learners

 

[geni]

When your enemy gives thanks to them as I demostrated how can you deny it? It's not coming from the U.S. mouth piece, It came from Bui Tin and Ho Chi Minh themselves. They basically gave thanks to them for the win. I didn't pull those quotes out of my ass.

"they lost due their own stupidity" is a well established properganda line.

The real reason we intervened was to stop what was really going on a Communist expansionism back by the USSR. South-Vietnamese became our proxy-regime against Communist expansionism which was proped up, armed, and funded by the Ussr. This proxy-war was the direct result of the fall out after world war 2. The Ussr nor America trusted each other. Ussr was using their communist north-Vietnamese in a proxy-war against our democratic south-vietamese and later us to gain strategical postioning of that region.

More China than soviet union.

However, the point of the thread is back then two super-powers were in a cold war, it can be counterproductive but not per se the hippies made it even moreso counterproductive and also allowed the cambodians to suffer the after affects of our departure. We could of won that war and those after affects could of been prevented.

Not really. Yes you could have won. However deployment of nukes would have caused wider problems. What can be done on paper and what is actuly practical are two different things. On paper the UK could have aquired large parts of the US and future US as a result of the Anglo-American War war of 1812. Practicaly after fighting Napoleon for so long the UK just wasn't interested in another major conflict.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

Wow! there are the "Maydays" and "Doc" here in politics.......

forgive me for entering.......

I guess every forum (and sub) needs their tools.

 

[Puppycow]

Proxywar: The main problem was this. I'm not in favor of communism or saying that the North Vietnamese were better. I am suggesting that the South Vietnamese Government wasn't popular with its own people (people were self-immoliating in protest) and wasn't worth getting American boys killed over. People have to stand up for their own freedom, if they want it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem

 

[proxywar]

Proxywar: The main problem was this. I'm not in favor of communism or saying that the North Vietnamese were better. I am suggesting that the South Vietnamese Government wasn't popular with its own people (people were self-immoliating in protest) and wasn't worth getting American boys killed over. People have to stand up for their own freedom, if they want it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem

Noone accused you of having anything to do with Communism.
unbeknown to you, You're just the by-product of the upper middleclass/hippie/baby boomer ideology. I don't fault you for it.



Diem's assassination was an err and set-back to the South vietnamese morale, But that doesn't speak for america's commitment to South vietnam. We gave a soild commitment we would help them through and through just like we have given to Iraq. However, The hippie pressure and north vietnamese propaganda were powerful tools which mounted ontop of that err and morale set-back. Hippies made America turn their backs on south vietnam while north vietnames propaganda handled the demostic issues creating unheval. However, A sign of upheaval does not suggest one should raise the white flag. If that were the case then America would of have lost the unpopular revolutionary war, the upopular civil war, and unpopular ww1 and ww2. The American hippies and sympathetizer alike attitude toward puppet regimes who were actually in the wrong like the north vietcong were remains the same America will always be in the wrong because they intervene in NATO fashion to try and help out other allies. When you give your word and promise to some friend you stay until the job is finished. That war was still winnable even without Diem, we never lost a single battle, but we withdrawled because we lost our nerve due to abunch of upper middle class jobless hypocritical hippie brats playing dime-store revolutionaries, and the north vietnam propaganda tactics helped domestically as well.

You've never heard the motto; never give up, never surrender?


These are the same "peace loving" hippies, when those brave men got home who incorrectly convicted just about every single U.S soilder to wear a government Uniform of being a rapist and baby killer. Not to mention they spat on them and crused at them all throughout the streets. While those real men of honor were fighting in north vietnam NATO-style inorder to prevent the Indo-china genocide, these upper middle class brats who had an ocean between them and real conflict were single handly turning america into a narco state. Not to mention, creating violent and aggressive organizations, starting brainwashing cults, and spreading alot of sexual diseases under the pseudonym free love era.

geni

Not really. Yes you could have won. However deployment of nukes would have caused wider problems. What can be done on paper and what is actuly practical are two different things. On paper the UK could have aquired large parts of the US and future US as a result of the Anglo-American War war of 1812. Practicaly after fighting Napoleon for so long the UK just wasn't interested in another major conflict.

So excusses aside you agree it was winnable? Suggesting nukes would have been deployed is incorrect. America nor the Ussr really wanted that end game it was only to be a very last resort. The real plan was to surround america with vast arry of nukes from strategic positions which would eventually lead to america signing their defeat on the dotted line.

Russia and America never fought directly during the cold war. Vietnam was a proxy-war... So your analogy alluding to too many wars caused disinterest doesn't fit.

 

[bjb]

All of you need to watch "The Fog of War", where Robert McNamara tells his side of the Vietnam story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War#11_Lessons_from_Vietnam

Near the end of the documentary, he's asked about Iraq and it is clear that he feels we are making the same mistakes in Iraq we made in Vietnam. I think everyone should read the list of 11 lessons and see if they agree.