Flea Party

[PLC1]

Berkeley students were mainly a joke. it was Kent State that bent that curve.

Kent State, My Li, that young girl running naked and screaming from a US attack, and the sight of the victims of napalm.

and the protesters all over this country that wouldn't allow such things to be swept under the carpet.

We'd probably still be waist deep in the big muddy if it hadn't been for the protesters.

 

[dogtowner]

Kent State, My Li, that young girl running naked and screaming from a US attack, and the sight of the victims of napalm.

and the protesters all over this country that wouldn't allow such things to be swept under the carpet.

We'd probably still be waist deep in the big muddy if it hadn't been for the protesters.

I pointed out Kent State. It was Berkeley that I was clarifying the role of.

 

[BigRob]

We'd probably still be waist deep in the big muddy if it hadn't been for the protesters.

What do you base this on? Protests were underway years before we actually left Vietnam...Kent State occurred in 1970, My Lai was in 1968, yet we didn't leave until 1975.

Additionally, I think you overstate the impact of the protests. Yes, they impacted the political landscape to a degree, but let us remember that in 1972 George McGovern ran on a platform that included the immediate withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam and lost 49 of 50 states.

I would argue lack of funding for the war from Congress played more of a role in ending the conflict than any protestors did. You might argue this was due to the protestors themselves, but that is a tough argument to sell in my opinion...however please do if you feel that way.

 

[Openmind]

Kent State, My Li, that young girl running naked and screaming from a US attack, and the sight of the victims of napalm.

and the protesters all over this country that wouldn't allow such things to be swept under the carpet.

We'd probably still be waist deep in the big muddy if it hadn't been for the protesters.

I totally agree!

 

[PLC1]

What do you base this on? Protests were underway years before we actually left Vietnam...Kent State occurred in 1970, My Lai was in 1968, yet we didn't leave until 1975.

Additionally, I think you overstate the impact of the protests. Yes, they impacted the political landscape to a degree, but let us remember that in 1972 George McGovern ran on a platform that included the immediate withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam and lost 49 of 50 states.

I would argue lack of funding for the war from Congress played more of a role in ending the conflict than any protestors did. You might argue this was due to the protestors themselves, but that is a tough argument to sell in my opinion...however please do if you feel that way.

Oh, we might have gotten out eventually anyway. The protests simply accelerated the process. It took ten years of protests before the entire mess was abandoned. It was 11 years before the government stepped up the wa... I mean military action (it was never a war, of course) to the point that the average American woke up to what was going on. Perhaps the whole thing would only have gone on for 30 or 40 years instead of just 21. Let's see... 40 years from 1954, the military would have withdrawn in 1994.

or not. Perhaps we'd still be there, now nearly 60 years after the Vietnamese won their independence from France in the battle of Dien Ben Phu.

There really is no way to know for sure what might have happened if things had been different.

 

[steveox]

Yeah Remember Kent State

Remember this was under LBJ watch.

 

[Gipper]

Oh, we might have gotten out eventually anyway. The protests simply accelerated the process. It took ten years of protests before the entire mess was abandoned. It was 11 years before the government stepped up the wa... I mean military action (it was never a war, of course) to the point that the average American woke up to what was going on. Perhaps the whole thing would only have gone on for 30 or 40 years instead of just 21. Let's see... 40 years from 1954, the military would have withdrawn in 1994.

or not. Perhaps we'd still be there, now nearly 60 years after the Vietnamese won their independence from France in the battle of Dien Ben Phu.

There really is no way to know for sure what might have happened if things had been different.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about the Vietnam War.

For one thing, WE WON THE F-ING WAR! The Paris Peace Accords signed by the commies ended the war and THEY LOST. Nixon bombed the sh*t out them forcing them to surrender their efforts to subjugate the South and forcing them to sign the peace agreement in 1973. After winning, we removed nearly all our troops, got our prisoners returned, and guaranteed we would support the South should the commies start their aggression again.

But, a funny thing happened in 1974. The Dems in Congress refused to give aid to the South...and then that other funny thing happened...WATERGATE, making Nixon unable to help the South. Ford begged the Dems to support our ally, honor our agreement and prevent the mass murder that ensured. But, they said F-you.

What most Americans do not know is the Vietnam War was a betrayal by the Dem Party that should never be forgotten or forgiven. And the irony is the Dem Party started the war....

Another ironic thing is Vietnam is now a capitalist nation. Why the hell did they cause all that death, destruction, and suffering only to drop communism and accept capitalism? I will tell you why. Because the stinking commie dictator Ho Chi Minh was only concerned with gaining power...at all costs...

With US forces gone from the country, South Vietnam stood alone. The situation worsened in December 1974, when Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, cutting off all military aid. This act removed the threat of air strikes should North Vietnam break the terms of the accords. Shortly after the act’s passage, North Vietnam began a limited offensive in Phuoc Long Province to test Saigon’s resolve. The province fell quickly and Hanoi pressed the attack. Surprised by the ease of their advance, against largely incompetent ARVN forces, the North Vietnamese stormed through the south, finally capturing Saigon. South Vietnam surrendered on April 30, 1975, following the fall of its capital. After thirty years of conflict, Ho Chi Minh’s vision of a united, communist Vietnam had been realized.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/vietnamwar/a/VietnamEnd.htm

This is a very good and short explanation by Bruce Herschensohn....
http://www.prageruniversity.com/Wisdom-of-the-Masters/How-the-Vietnam-War-Was-Won-and-Lost.html

 

[PLC1]

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about the Vietnam War.

For one thing, WE WON THE F-ING WAR! The Paris Peace Accords signed by the commies ended the war and THEY LOST. Nixon bombed the sh*t out them forcing them to surrender their efforts to subjugate the South and forcing them to sign the peace agreement in 1973. After winning, we removed nearly all our troops, got our prisoners returned, and guaranteed we would support the South should the commies start their aggression again.

But, a funny thing happened in 1974. The Dems in Congress refused to give aid to the South...and then that other funny thing happened...WATERGATE, making Nixon unable to help the South. Ford begged the Dems to support our ally, honor our agreement and prevent the mass murder that ensured. But, they said F-you.

What most Americans do not know is the Vietnam War was a betrayal by the Dem Party that should never be forgotten or forgiven. And the irony is the Dem Party started the war....

Another ironic thing is Vietnam is now a capitalist nation. Why the hell did they cause all that death, destruction, and suffering only to drop communism and accept capitalism? I will tell you why. Because the stinking commie dictator Ho Chi Minh was only concerned with gaining power...at all costs...



This is a very good and short explanation by Bruce Herschensohn....
http://www.prageruniversity.com/Wisdom-of-the-Masters/How-the-Vietnam-War-Was-Won-and-Lost.html

Wow! In your world, the US won the Vietnam war! That is simply amazing. In my world, Saigon is now called Ho Chi Minh City. What's it called in yours?

The fact of the matter is that Vietnam is a capitalist nation, that it never was a Communist nation to begin with, that had we not gone there, all of that death and destruction would never have happened.

Had we been allies of the Vietnamese, we could have helped them to remove the real Communist dictator, Pol Pot. As it was, we recognized his regime as a legitimate government, while the Vietnamese "Communists" took it out Unbelievable, but true.

As for the "Democrats did it", which is the same mantra you always use regardless of whether we're talking about global warming, unemployment, scabies, or lost wars, the military action (never was a "war" remember) started under the Eisenhower administration (R), continued under the Kennedy (D), really heated up under Johnson (D), continued under Nixon (R)

So, not that it makes a scintilla of difference, but which party was the in charge during the Vietnam war again?

 

[Pandora]

Flea Party is a good descriptive name for these foolish commies funded by Jew hating Commie Billionaire George Soros and his gang of Marxists.

And this from Brent Bozell:


The fifth column marches on...while many Americans are asleep to the danger or have become useful idiots. All the consequence of liberalism's destructive and intolerant nature.

and now apparently USA hating too. On the news this AM I watched one of the flea bands performing for the group in Portland and the song kept repeating the lines

F#%k the USA

Oh and they had really great anti Jewish signs for their marches too.

 

[Gipper]

Wow! In your world, the US won the Vietnam war! That is simply amazing. In my world, Saigon is now called Ho Chi Minh City. What's it called in yours?

The fact of the matter is that Vietnam is a capitalist nation, that it never was a Communist nation to begin with, that had we not gone there, all of that death and destruction would never have happened.

Had we been allies of the Vietnamese, we could have helped them to remove the real Communist dictator, Pol Pot. As it was, we recognized his regime as a legitimate government, while the Vietnamese "Communists" took it out Unbelievable, but true.

As for the "Democrats did it", which is the same mantra you always use regardless of whether we're talking about global warming, unemployment, scabies, or lost wars, the military action (never was a "war" remember) started under the Eisenhower administration (R), continued under the Kennedy (D), really heated up under Johnson (D), continued under Nixon (R)

So, not that it makes a scintilla of difference, but which party was the in charge during the Vietnam war again?

Your rantings indicate a complete lack of knowledge.

First, I am not arguing whether we should have started the war or not. It is easy in retrospect to conclude that the red menace was not a problem and the domino theory wrong. If JFK and LBJ had not involved us, that obviously would have been the better choice...in retrospect. But they did and we WON thanks to Nixon.

Vietnam was never a communist nation you say??? WTF is that??? I suppose you will claim Ho Chi Minh was not a commie either....How in the world do you come to that conclusion? Of course it was a communist nation. This statement alone proves your lack of knowledge.

I suggest you educate yourself before posting crap. The commies signed a peace agreement. We removed nearly all our troops. But, like I say, a funny thing then happened. The Ds in Congress refused to support the South. Then Watergate destroyed Nixon. Then the North invaded again in massive numbers reneging on the peace treaty as all commie nations do. The consequences lead to years of mass murder by the COMMUNISTS.

Read the links I posted and you might also read this...

The subsequent election was won by Richard Nixon on the theme of Peace with Honor. Nixon's plan was to strengthen the South, seriously damage the communist position, negotiate an enforceable peace agreement, and withdraw all American troops except a few advisors and black operators. The peace agreement would be enforced by American air power if the North launched major attacks. Nixon kept his word, and was able to defeat a major Communist offensive (the Easter Offensive of 1972) with almost no US ground participation leaving the ground fighting to the much maligned Army of South Vietnam (ARVN). After finally removing most of Johnson's restrictions on US bombing of the North, the US mined Haiphong Harbor, the North's only cargo port, and attacked Hanoi with B-52s in the Christmas Bombings on 1972. After negotiating without substance for years, the Communists, confronted with a demonstrated willingness by the US to truly damage them, signed a peace agreement within a month.
However, the Communists continued to fight, utterly ignoring their agreement to cease infiltrating into the South. After Watergate, Nixon lost his political power at home, and ultimately his office. The administration was no longer able to enforce the peace agreement against a rabidly anti-war congress. US military intervention (via air power) to counter overt communist invasions was banned by Congress, as was almost all military aid.
Given this abject betrayal of South Vietnam, the Communists invaded with a massive force (22 divisions with integrated armor and anti-air artillery including missile units), and fairly rapidly defeated a now betrayed and demoralized South Vietnamese army. After the conquest, many Vietnamese were sent to forced labor camps, where they died out of sight of the media, often while clearing mine fields with inadequate tools, while sick and malnourished. As was typical with communist conquests using indigenous anti-regime personnel, many of the remaining NLF and VC were themselves imprisoned in these camps, because the North's rulers did not want people trained in subversion who might fight the new dictatorship. Thus, ironically, many former NLF and VC became boat people.
Vietnam was ultimately betrayed by a United States Congress, newly filled with anti-war leftists, who abandoned Vietnam to its conquerors from the North. Cambodia was likewise lost, leading to the murderous Pol Pot regime, which ironically was later defeated when Communist Vietnam, by then a Soviet proxy, invaded Cambodia, a Chinese proxy.

It is likely that if the apologists for the enemy, such as Kerry, had not been so effective, and the Watergate scandal had not unseated Nixon and deeply damaged the Republican Party, South Vietnam today would be a prosperous democracy like South Korea, and the North would be the same despotic, corrupt and poor regime that it is now.
http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/2003/11/22/vietnam-war-facts-and-fiction/

 

[PLC1]

Your rantings indicate a complete lack of knowledge.

First, I am not arguing whether we should have started the war or not. It is easy in retrospect to conclude that the red menace was not a problem and the domino theory wrong. If JFK and LBJ had not involved us, that obviously would have been the better choice...in retrospect. But they did and we WON thanks to Nixon.

Vietnam was never a communist nation you say??? WTF is that??? I suppose you will claim Ho Chi Minh was not a commie either....How in the world do you come to that conclusion? Of course it was a communist nation. This statement alone proves your lack of knowledge.

I suggest you educate yourself before posting crap. The commies signed a peace agreement. We removed nearly all our troops. But, like I say, a funny thing then happened. The Ds in Congress refused to support the South. Then Watergate destroyed Nixon. Then the North invaded again in massive numbers reneging on the peace treaty as all commie nations do. The consequences lead to years of mass murder by the COMMUNISTS.

Read the links I posted and you might also read this...

You can blame the Democrats if you want. Personally, I could care less which party you or anyone else thinks is at fault for what anyway.

You can even make a case that, if Ho Chi Minh said he was a Communist, then that's what he was. Subsequent actions by his government cast some doubt on that, but whatever.

What you can't do is to support the totally absurd claim that the US actually won the war in Vietnam. The fact of the matter is that Saigon fell, is now known as Ho Chi Minh City, and that Vietnam is now a capitalist nation.

It is also a historic fact that it was the Vietnamese army that took out Pol Pot and put an end to the killing fields in Cambodia.

 

[Gipper]

You can blame the Democrats if you want. Personally, I could care less which party you or anyone else thinks is at fault for what anyway.

You can even make a case that, if Ho Chi Minh said he was a Communist, then that's what he was. Subsequent actions by his government cast some doubt on that, but whatever.

What you can't do is to support the totally absurd claim that the US actually won the war in Vietnam. The fact of the matter is that Saigon fell, is now known as Ho Chi Minh City, and that Vietnam is now a capitalist nation.

It is also a historic fact that it was the Vietnamese army that took out Pol Pot and put an end to the killing fields in Cambodia.

Ho Chi Minh was a COMMUNIST. There is no question about it. Even the left leaning Wikipedia knows it...why not you?

Hồ Chí Minh ( listen; 19 May 1890 – 2 September 1969), born Nguyễn Sinh Cung and also known as Nguyễn Ái Quốc, was a Vietnamese Marxist-Leninist revolutionary leader who was prime minister (1945–1955) and president (1945–1969) of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam). He was a key figure in the formation of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1945, as well as the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) and the Vietcong during the Vietnam War until his death in 1969.
From 1919–1923, while living in France, Nguyễn Sinh Cung embraced communism, through his friend and Socialist Party of France comrade Marcel Cachin.[citation needed] Cung claimed to have arrived in Paris from London in 1917, but French police only have documents of his arrival in June 1919.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh

I have already supported why we won. But, I will continue to try to educate you.

Can you name one battle we lost? Where was it that we surrendered? What were the terms of the surrender agreement? How many American troops were in country fighting the commies in 1975 when SV fell to the commies? How many Americans troops surrendered to the commies?

How can a nation lose a war it was not involved in, had signed a peace agreement two years earlier when it's enemy begged for peace, and chose not to fight when the commies started up again, while throwing it's ally under the bus? All resulting in millions of deaths (thanks to the D Party)?

Do not try to change the subject with Pol Pot and your ridiculous moral equivalence trickery. Had we not allowed the commies to win, Pol Pot would never have existed nor would the commies in Vietnam have killed or imprisoned MILLIONS IN VIETNAM. So, while you think them admirable for taking out Pol Pot, forgive me for laughing at you.

Vietnam was an unprecedented betrayal by America. This is why there is so much misinformation about it. We Americans do not like being betrayers.

 

[PLC1]

Ho Chi Minh was a COMMUNIST. There is no question about it. Even the left leaning Wikipedia knows it...why not you?



I have already supported why we won. But, I will continue to try to educate you.

Can you name one battle we lost? Where was it that we surrendered? What were the terms of the surrender agreement? How many American troops were in country fighting the commies in 1975 when SV fell to the commies? How many Americans troops surrendered to the commies?

How can a nation lose a war it was not involved in, had signed a peace agreement two years earlier when it's enemy begged for peace, and chose not to fight when the commies started up again, while throwing it's ally under the bus? All resulting in millions of deaths (thanks to the D Party)?

Do not try to change the subject with Pol Pot and your ridiculous moral equivalence trickery. Had we not allowed the commies to win, Pol Pot would never have existed nor would the commies in Vietnam have killed or imprisoned MILLIONS IN VIETNAM. So, while you think them admirable for taking out Pol Pot, forgive me for laughing at you.

Vietnam was an unprecedented betrayal by America. This is why there is so much misinformation about it. We Americans do not like being betrayers.

Had we not allowed the commies to win

You can make a point that we allowed the "Commies" to win. You can't make a point that we won. The US did not win, for a variety of reasons. If you want to blame the Democrat party, fine. The facts are, we did not win, and Vietnam is not a Communist country today.

If we had not "allowed the Commies to win," i.e., if we had not lost, then Pol Pot wouldn't have seized power in the first place, is that really your next argument? Pol Pot was not Ho Chi Minh.

Had we allowed the Vietnamese to keep the independence they won from the French in '54, none of the agony and bloodshed would have happened.

And, had we gone to war to win, declared war on Vietnam and gone in with all guns blazing and subdued them, the war would not have drug on for 21 years.

The lesson that should have been learned is that you don't go to war lightly, but if you do go to war, it has to be a total commitment.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look as if that lesson has been learned even today.

 

[Openmind]

You can make a point that we allowed the "Commies" to win. You can't make a point that we won. The US did not win, for a variety of reasons. If you want to blame the Democrat party, fine. The facts are, we did not win, and Vietnam is not a Communist country today.

If we had not "allowed the Commies to win," i.e., if we had not lost, then Pol Pot wouldn't have seized power in the first place, is that really your next argument? Pol Pot was not Ho Chi Minh.

Had we allowed the Vietnamese to keep the independence they won from the French in '54, none of the agony and bloodshed would have happened.

And, had we gone to war to win, declared war on Vietnam and gone in with all guns blazing and subdued them, the war would not have drug on for 21 years.

The lesson that should have been learned is that you don't go to war lightly, but if you do go to war, it has to be a total commitment.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look as if that lesson has been learned even today.

One of the main reason this important lesson is not being learned is precisely because of the "rewriting of history" that the extreme Right likes to do.

They just live in a "lala land," where only what they WANT to believe is the truth!

I'm glad rational people like you stand their ground!

 

[Gipper]

You can make a point that we allowed the "Commies" to win. You can't make a point that we won. The US did not win, for a variety of reasons. If you want to blame the Democrat party, fine. The facts are, we did not win, and Vietnam is not a Communist country today.

If we had not "allowed the Commies to win," i.e., if we had not lost, then Pol Pot wouldn't have seized power in the first place, is that really your next argument? Pol Pot was not Ho Chi Minh.

Had we allowed the Vietnamese to keep the independence they won from the French in '54, none of the agony and bloodshed would have happened.

And, had we gone to war to win, declared war on Vietnam and gone in with all guns blazing and subdued them, the war would not have drug on for 21 years.

The lesson that should have been learned is that you don't go to war lightly, but if you do go to war, it has to be a total commitment.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look as if that lesson has been learned even today.

Do we have to go round and round every time we debate? You can't ever stay on topic, but constantly try to change the debate.

First, we won the war. I listed several reasons why we won and included several links to published articles backing my opinion. You say we did not win for a variety of reasons, but don't list any reasons.

Second, why are you repeating what I said? I stated earlier that Vietnam is now a capitalist nation and you repeat it. So?

Third, you stated this: 'that it never was a Communist nation to begin with.'...this is absurd and you know it. Vietnam was a communist nation for the entire war years including the war with the French. And they continued to be after they conquered the South in 1975.

Third, I do not know what you are talking about regarding Pol Pot. You brought him into the debate claiming the Vietnamese shut him down, which is true. But, so what? One murderous regime ends another murderous regime does not make things peachy. My point regarding Pol Pot is he would never have existed if we had supported the South and prevented Vietnam and Cambodia from descending into hell, which is what we agreed to in 1973 only to betray them later.

Over 50k American dead and many more wounded won that war. Only to have the Dems allow the commies to waltz back in completely unopposed and murder millions. Sad. Very sad. Maybe the saddest chapter in all of American history.

I can't disagree with you regarding your comments on the situation before our involvement and on the lessons learned. But, that has nothing to do with the fact that we won the war and its easy to say those things now in retrospect. But, we do need to learn from history, which is something the Left never will.