Flea Party

[PLC1]

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.

The topic was whether we won the war in Vietnam, correct?

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.

Yes, you did, then you said that we "let the Commies win."

When the last inning has been played, and your team is still down by 2 points, you might engage in speculation about why you lost, how you might have won, whose fault your loss was, whether you "let" the other team win, and so on, but the fact is you lost.

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

So, since we lost the war, we didn't defeat Communism in Vietnam.

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.

Then why are they not a Communist nation today? It was the north, remember, that took over the country in 1975, not the military dictatorship under Kao Key.

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.

My point was that Pol Pot was a Communist dictator for real, not just a pretend one, and that Ho chi Minh took him out.

If Ho was a Communist, why wasn't he in league with his buddy, Pol Pot?

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.

At last we agree on something. It was, indeed, one of the saddest chapters in American history, one that never should have happened.

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.

Nor will the right.

You seem to be saying two things: We won the war, then the dirty rotten Dems allowed the enemy to win. If the enemy won, then it won, and we lost. You can blame the Dems if you want, you can blame whoever you want. The fact of the matter is that the North Vietnamese won and reunified their country, which was their goal all along.

You can say that your team would have won if the coach hadn't put in a lousy pitcher at the end, that it's all his fault that the other team won, but the fact of the matter still is that the other team won.

The real difference is that this is one ball game that should never have been played in the first place.

 

[Gipper]

The topic was whether we won the war in Vietnam, correct?



Yes, you did, then you said that we "let the Commies win."

When the last inning has been played, and your team is still down by 2 points, you might engage in speculation about why you lost, how you might have won, whose fault your loss was, whether you "let" the other team win, and so on, but the fact is you lost.



So, since we lost the war, we didn't defeat Communism in Vietnam.



Then why are they not a Communist nation today? It was the north, remember, that took over the country in 1975, not the military dictatorship under Kao Key.



My point was that Pol Pot was a Communist dictator for real, not just a pretend one, and that Ho chi Minh took him out.

If Ho was a Communist, why wasn't he in league with his buddy, Pol Pot?




At last we agree on something. It was, indeed, one of the saddest chapters in American history, one that never should have happened.



Nor will the right.

You seem to be saying two things: We won the war, then the dirty rotten Dems allowed the enemy to win. If the enemy won, then it won, and we lost. You can blame the Dems if you want, you can blame whoever you want. The fact of the matter is that the North Vietnamese won and reunified their country, which was their goal all along.

You can say that your team would have won if the coach hadn't put in a lousy pitcher at the end, that it's all his fault that the other team won, but the fact of the matter still is that the other team won.

The real difference is that this is one ball game that should never have been played in the first place.

First, Ho Chi Minh DIED WELL BEFORE Vietnam took out Pol Pot. Read up on Ho Chi Minh as you do not know much about him.

Second, I have stated my opinion over and over and backed it up with reliable sources.

We WON THE VIETNAM WAR AND LEFT Southeast Asia. The commies signed a peace agreement. After we left, the Ds refused to support the South and Nixon got ousted. The commies guessed the US was not going to support the South. So, they invaded again and we betrayed our ally courtesy of the Dems in Congress. The region descended into a murderous horror show...because of our betrayal.

You are not alone in your ignorance of the war. Sadly, most Americans are completely ignorant thanks to the libs controlling the press, Hollywood, and academia. Please read this book....or any REAL book on the war.

Also please go to the 10 minute mark of this video and learn about the war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSFJBpH6L8g

Americans should honor our noble efforts in Southeast Asia at trying to prevent totalitarian aggression and honor Nixon for winning the war. Maybe some day when all the stinking libs from the 60s are dead and gone, the truth will be known to all Americans.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.This much we pledge—and more. JFK Inaugural Speech 1961

His own party betrayed him, America, and South Vietnam...

 

[PLC1]

First, Ho Chi Minh DIED WELL BEFORE Vietnam took out Pol Pot. Read up on Ho Chi Minh as you do not know much about him.

Second, I have stated my opinion over and over and backed it up with reliable sources.

We WON THE VIETNAM WAR AND LEFT Southeast Asia. The commies signed a peace agreement. After we left, the Ds refused to support the South and Nixon got ousted. The commies guessed the US was not going to support the South. So, they invaded again and we betrayed our ally courtesy of the Dems in Congress. The region descended into a murderous horror show...because of our betrayal.

You are not alone in your ignorance of the war. Sadly, most Americans are completely ignorant thanks to the libs controlling the press, Hollywood, and academia. Please read this book....or any REAL book on the war.

Also please go to the 10 minute mark of this video and learn about the war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSFJBpH6L8g

Americans should honor our noble efforts in Southeast Asia at trying to prevent totalitarian aggression and honor Nixon for winning the war. Maybe some day when all the stinking libs from the 60s are dead and gone, the truth will be known to all Americans.



His own party betrayed him, America, and South Vietnam...

Do you remember Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam?

 

[Gipper]

Do you remember Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam?

I will answer your question, but do you now agree that we won the war?

Regarding your question, are you referring to Nixon's Vietnamization Plan? If so, that was not secret. And, it worked resulting in our removing our combat troops. Allowing the South to fight for itself. And, we bombed the crap out of the North along with their surrogates in Laos and Cambodia. Resulting in the peace agreement ending the war in 1973. We won!

Or, are you referring to Nixon's covert effort to try and convince the North that he was crazy and intended to nuke them? Of course, we all know (or do we?) Nixon had no intention of nuking the North, but hoped that our enemy would think he did. All in an admirable effort to stop the North's murderous aggression of the South and end the war.

Question for you: Did Nixon do a good job of handling the war?

 

[PLC1]

I will answer your question, but do you now agree that we won the war?

Regarding your question, are you referring to Nixon's Vietnamization Plan? If so, that was not secret. And, it worked resulting in our removing our combat troops. Allowing the South to fight for itself. And, we bombed the crap out of the North along with their surrogates in Laos and Cambodia. Resulting in the peace agreement ending the war in 1973. We won!

Or, are you referring to Nixon's covert effort to try and convince the North that he was crazy and intended to nuke them? Of course, we all know (or do we?) Nixon had no intention of nuking the North, but hoped that our enemy would think he did. All in an admirable effort to stop the North's murderous aggression of the South and end the war.

Question for you: Did Nixon do a good job of handling the war?

He did exactly what his opponent wanted to do: Declared victory and went home. He put an end to the long war of attrition than should never have been started in the first place.

The result of his having pulled out of Vietnam was predictable, of course. The North Vietnamese government reunified the country, which was their goal all along. In the process, there was a lot of death and destruction, the consequence of war.

The question is, did he do a good job? His plan did finally put an end to the fighting, but it came at a price. I suppose that price would have to have been paid sooner or later, so, yes, I think he did the right thing.

Unless, of course, you think that there might actually have been a way to bring an end to the war and reunify the country without the destruction that came with the fall of Saigon. Personally, I can't see how that could have been done.

What were the alternatives?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

He did exactly what his opponent wanted to do: Declared victory and went home. He put an end to the long war of attrition than should never have been started in the first place.

The result of his having pulled out of Vietnam was predictable, of course. The North Vietnamese government reunified the country, which was their goal all along. In the process, there was a lot of death and destruction, the consequence of war.

The question is, did he do a good job? His plan did finally put an end to the fighting, but it came at a price. I suppose that price would have to have been paid sooner or later, so, yes, I think he did the right thing.

Unless, of course, you think that there might actually have been a way to bring an end to the war and reunify the country without the destruction that came with the fall of Saigon. Personally, I can't see how that could have been done.

What were the alternatives?

we won by leaving and letting the communist take over...as you know, our goal was the spread of Communism...

I think gipper is like the child who screams he wins, or he is taking his ball and going home...and then when you go home, you won....even if you lost 10 to 1

 

[Gipper]

we won by leaving and letting the communist take over...as you know, our goal was the spread of Communism...

I think gipper is like the child who screams he wins, or he is taking his ball and going home...and then when you go home, you won....even if you lost 10 to 1

This is another troll post by our leading site lib. Bododie was banned for this kind of thing. Why not Pockets?

 

[Gipper]

He did exactly what his opponent wanted to do: Declared victory and went home. He put an end to the long war of attrition than should never have been started in the first place.

The result of his having pulled out of Vietnam was predictable, of course. The North Vietnamese government reunified the country, which was their goal all along. In the process, there was a lot of death and destruction, the consequence of war.

The question is, did he do a good job? His plan did finally put an end to the fighting, but it came at a price. I suppose that price would have to have been paid sooner or later, so, yes, I think he did the right thing.

Unless, of course, you think that there might actually have been a way to bring an end to the war and reunify the country without the destruction that came with the fall of Saigon. Personally, I can't see how that could have been done.

What were the alternatives?

I do not think the result was predictable. Had we honored our agreement with the South and supported them against commie aggression, we could have saved the South from the hell they endured. As an expert on the war stated, Vietnam could have ended up just like Korea had we done what was necessary.

I am NOT suggesting that we needed to send in combat troops again in 1975. What needed to be done was just what had succeeded in 1972 and 1973. That is, bombed and mined the North mercilessly and they would have stopped their commie aggression. But, the Dems prevented it and America's greatest betrayal occurred.

You seem to think the commies unifying the nation was as good thing. I do not. Millions lost their lives and the human suffering was horrendous...most Americans do not know what happened in the South after the North won. It was nearly as bad as what the khmer rouge did in Cambodia.

All the death and destruction caused by the commies and for what? For nothing more than the ego of a commie dictator. Because now Vietnam is a capitalist nation. The irony is almost too much to take.

 

[Openmind]

I do not think the result was predictable. Had we honored our agreement with the South and supported them against commie aggression, we could have saved the South from the hell they endured. As an expert on the war stated, Vietnam could have ended up just like Korea had we done what was necessary.

I am NOT suggesting that we needed to send in combat troops again in 1975. What needed to be done was just what had succeeded in 1972 and 1973. That is, bombed and mined the North mercilessly and they would have stopped their commie aggression. But, the Dems prevented it and America's greatest betrayal occurred.

You seem to think the commies unifying the nation was as good thing. I do not. Millions lost their lives and the human suffering was horrendous...most Americans do not know what happened in the South after the North won. It was nearly as bad as what the khmer rouge did in Cambodia.

All the death and destruction caused by the commies and for what? For nothing more than the ego of a commie dictator. Because now Vietnam is a capitalist nation. The irony is almost too much to take.

And the result of years of more killing both in South and North Vietnam would have been. . .what?

How much different would Vietnam have looked today if we had inflicted more death, including many more AMERICAN DEATH?
How much "BETTER" would Vietnam economy, or social health be today?

I venture to say. . .it wouldn't be better!

Your stand on this issue is a reflection of your national arrogance. If WE don't do it. . .it's not done properly. . .NO ONE can beat us!

This is the type of attitude that has driven us to spend 6X more on defense than the rest of the world. . .and has made the world distrust and dislike us.

Get over it. . .recognize that our "American Exceptionalism" works great WITHIN our borders, but not at all outside our borders.

 

[PLC1]

I do not think the result was predictable. Had we honored our agreement with the South and supported them against commie aggression, we could have saved the South from the hell they endured. As an expert on the war stated, Vietnam could have ended up just like Korea had we done what was necessary.

I am NOT suggesting that we needed to send in combat troops again in 1975. What needed to be done was just what had succeeded in 1972 and 1973. That is, bombed and mined the North mercilessly and they would have stopped their commie aggression. But, the Dems prevented it and America's greatest betrayal occurred.

You seem to think the commies unifying the nation was as good thing. I do not. Millions lost their lives and the human suffering was horrendous...most Americans do not know what happened in the South after the North won. It was nearly as bad as what the khmer rouge did in Cambodia.

All the death and destruction caused by the commies and for what? For nothing more than the ego of a commie dictator. Because now Vietnam is a capitalist nation. The irony is almost too much to take.

A couple of interesting observations about the above post:

1. This is the first time I've seen the situation in Korea mentioned as a desirable outcome.

2. You seem to be saying that the North won. In fact, you did say that the North won. Does that mean I've convinced you, or that you thought that the North won all along? If the North won, then didn't the US lose? As a rule, there aren't two winners in a war. Most of the time, in fact, there are two losers.

Oh, yes, and all of that death and destruction that happened when the American troops withdrew: It was just the last chapter in a whole novel of death and destruction that never should have been written in the first place. Is there some way that the last chapter could have been avoided, really?

 

[Gipper]

A couple of interesting observations about the above post:

1. This is the first time I've seen the situation in Korea mentioned as a desirable outcome.

2. You seem to be saying that the North won. In fact, you did say that the North won. Does that mean I've convinced you, or that you thought that the North won all along? If the North won, then didn't the US lose? As a rule, there aren't two winners in a war. Most of the time, in fact, there are two losers.

Oh, yes, and all of that death and destruction that happened when the American troops withdrew: It was just the last chapter in a whole novel of death and destruction that never should have been written in the first place. Is there some way that the last chapter could have been avoided, really?

1. So, you think what happened in Vietnam was BETTER than what occurred in Korea? I think not. South Korea is a thriving first world nation because we prevented the commie horror show that occurred in Cambodia and Vietnam. We did not betray S. Korea. You need to understand that NO ONE wants to live under communism except a few dumb westerns who have been brainwashed.

2. The North won the war. But, they won it by beating the South not beating us. The D party prevented us from helping the South...thus betraying them and our word....get it yet? We left in 1973....remember? The commies continued their aggression in 1975. Remember?

I suspect you think letting the commies win was a better outcome than beating them. I do not. If you knew more about the War, you would know that most of the South was free and safe during America's time there. You no doubt think My Lai massacres occurred all the time, when in reality nearly ALL the massacres and atrocities were committed by the commies (which went unreported by the stinking American Left media). And, those massacres and atrocities continued in a big way after the North won. This is because you were lied to by the American left media.

I beg you an all others here to educate yourselves on the Vietnam War. The Left media lied about the War and continue to lie about it. As they lie about most things. Everything you learned about the War from the American left media is wrong.

Here are three excellent books you need to read ASAP.

 

[Openmind]

1. So, you think what happened in Vietnam was BETTER than what occurred in Korea? I think not. South Korea is a thriving first world nation because we prevented the commie horror show that occurred in Cambodia and Vietnam. We did not betray S. Korea. You need to understand that NO ONE wants to live under communism except a few dumb westerns who have been brainwashed.

2. The North won the war. But, they won it by beating the South not beating us. The D party prevented us from helping the South...thus betraying them and our word....get it yet? We left in 1973....remember? The commies continued their aggression in 1975. Remember?

I suspect you think letting the commies win was a better outcome than beating them. I do not. If you knew more about the War, you would know that most of the South was free and safe during America's time there. You no doubt think My Lai massacres occurred all the time, when in reality nearly ALL the massacres and atrocities were committed by the commies (which went unreported by the stinking American Left media). And, those massacres and atrocities continued in a big way after the North won. This is because you were lied to by the American left media.

I beg you an all others here to educate yourselves on the Vietnam War. The Left media lied about the War and continue to lie about it. As they lie about most things. Everything you learned about the War from the American left media is wrong.

Here are three excellent books you need to read ASAP.

I believe the point that was being discussed was that YOU said the US won the war in Vietnam, and they didn't.

And now, in your statements, you ADMIT that they didn't. . .that they just packed up and ran!

And if they had not. . .that war might still have been going on, and more American soldiers would have died for NOTHING!

Vietnam is doing quite well, and they are not suffering. So. . .what's the big deal? South Korea is doing quite well, but they are still being threatened by North Korea. . . was that a better outcome than in Vietnam? I guess it is a matter of opinion!

There are plenty of books and information about the Vietnam war. . .but, once again, any information that doesn't fall within YOUR way of thinking is "LYING!"

 

[PLC1]

OK, so the "Commie North" didn't defeat the US, as we simply packed up and left. They beat the south, that is to say, the government that we set up to run half of the country. That seems to be the argument, anyway, along with a lot of irrelevant stuff about how bad the "Commies" were.

I suppose that is one way not to lose the game, simply take your ball and go home, then claim that you won.

I wonder just what Vietnam would look like today had we stayed on and somehow defeated the NVA, i.e., had we actually won? What would a US victory have looked like in the end? We can speculate, of course, and imagine that perhaps it would be similar to Korea, half under an Orwellian dictatorship, the other half free. We don't know that, of course. I wonder just how long the fighting would have lasted? Would it still be going on? No one knows for sure.

One thing that we can say with some degree of certitude is that a military dictatorship being propped up by a foreign power is no match for a domestic movement.

 

[Gipper]

I believe the point that was being discussed was that YOU said the US won the war in Vietnam, and they didn't.

And now, in your statements, you ADMIT that they didn't. . .that they just packed up and ran!

And if they had not. . .that war might still have been going on, and more American soldiers would have died for NOTHING!

Vietnam is doing quite well, and they are not suffering. So. . .what's the big deal? South Korea is doing quite well, but they are still being threatened by North Korea. . . was that a better outcome than in Vietnam? I guess it is a matter of opinion!

There are plenty of books and information about the Vietnam war. . .but, once again, any information that doesn't fall within YOUR way of thinking is "LYING!"

We did win and then we left.

Vietnam is okay now...so what's the big deal is your comment. You obviously know nothing about the history of Vietnam.

Yeah the truth is just an opinion.

 

[Gipper]

OK, so the "Commie North" didn't defeat the US, as we simply packed up and left. They beat the south, that is to say, the government that we set up to run half of the country. That seems to be the argument, anyway, along with a lot of irrelevant stuff about how bad the "Commies" were.

I suppose that is one way not to lose the game, simply take your ball and go home, then claim that you won.

I wonder just what Vietnam would look like today had we stayed on and somehow defeated the NVA, i.e., had we actually won? What would a US victory have looked like in the end? We can speculate, of course, and imagine that perhaps it would be similar to Korea, half under an Orwellian dictatorship, the other half free. We don't know that, of course. I wonder just how long the fighting would have lasted? Would it still be going on? No one knows for sure.

One thing that we can say with some degree of certitude is that a military dictatorship being propped up by a foreign power is no match for a domestic movement.

The commies begged Nixon to stop the bombing and mining in 1973. That is what resulted in the Paris agreement ending the war in 1973. All we needed to do was continue bombing and mining and the commies would have stopped their aggression in 1975...but the Dems said sorry South Vietnam you are F**KED!.

And your statement '...military dictatorship being propped up by a foreign power is no match for a domestic movement.' Is terribly misguided and wrong. You need to read up on Korea too. Domestic movement...WTH is that? You seem to think the Vietnamese wanted to be commies. NO ONE WANTS TO BE COMMIES...except of course a few western fools. Ever heard of the Boat People...they sure did not want to be commies. The NVA and VC were ruthless and if you did not do as they told you, they killed you. Just like all other commie movements. Now don't you think people would do their bidding to stay alive?