Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes the TET Offensive was desperate action by the Viet Cong and they did lose a lot but that was just the area around Saigon for the most part. The military spin on that was that we must be winning could not have been further from the truth, this did not take into account the rest of the country and in particular the NVA.
We had plenty of opportunities to bring peace but through poor leadership we always managed to keep the war going. We put in puppet leaders that terrorized their own people then had them assassinated and replaced with even worse options. We never won the hearts of the Vietnamese people with the destruction of their villages and the killing of innocent people. Their army was dysfunctional and incapable of defense of their own country (sound familiar).
We did not win the war on the battlefield, very few soldiers had any interest in winning they were there to survive for 1 year not for victory.
Yes, there's a difference. Starting the war was a lot worse.
Pulling out before the Iraqis were secure was even dumber. Now the cost to go back and fight those President Bush warned President Obama about......I do agree we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but we are and we left too soon.
Bush warned this would happen in Iraq........... To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready … would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.
The UK and The US decided to quit while the terrorist gained ground, nice plan! Now We and the World has ISIS!!!!
Don't play stupid semantic games. Even though we didn't declare war, everyone called it the Vietnam War.
America was operating under the Domino Theory - a theory devised by Democrats, by the way, even though Democrats now like to say they were against going to war in Vietnam - that the Soviets were attempting to spread their ideology by toppling one third world nation at a time until they eventually had enough of the world under their influence that they could strangle the West.
No, they aren't. Being a traitor means something. You should get a dictionary and look the word up. But that's part of normal liberal intellectual dishonesty - to malign people who disagree with them as evil rather than simply differing in opinion on what the best way is to achieve the common good. Maybe you want to call JFK a traitor, but I hardly think anybody else is going to agree with you.
Maybe in your worldview she doesn't. But here in the sane world, when American people call American soldiers being tortured and starved liars, that's something to apologize for.
The Soviets weren't attempting to spread anything in Vietnam and you know it. Ho Chi Minh was no Soviet patsy...he was NOBODY'S patsy.
We involved ourselves in Vietnam in the first place by financing the French attempt to take the nation back as a colony and the French failed. We should've left it at that.
The Domino Theory was always hyperbole. If one looks at the Cold War, it's pretty damn obvious that we were far more aggressive than the Soviets. Our government told us one lie after another (Guatemala is a great example) about the Soviets trying to expand their influence in the third world, and nine times out of ten they were lying. Outside of their eastern European territory, the Soviets did little in attempting to expand their hegemony.
So the real truth is that we had no business in Vietnam and sending American men thousands of miles away to participate in a civil war in a nation that most Americans couldn't even find on a map.
The proof is in the pudding. When the North Vietnamese took over the whole country, did the Soviets overrun Asia? Was the United States all of a sudden plagued by so much communism that it threatened to strangle the West?
Nope. But keep believing all that right wing communist red scare Cold War tripe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds
Pulling out before the Iraqis were secure was even dumber. Now the cost to go back and fight those President Bush warned President Obama about......I do agree we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but we are and we left too soon.
Bush warned this would happen in Iraq........... To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready … would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.
The UK and The US decided to quit while the terrorist gained ground, nice plan! Now We and the World has ISIS!!!!
There's no such thing as leaving Iraq to early. If anything, we left years too late.
The Soviets weren't attempting to spread anything in Vietnam and you know it. Ho Chi Minh was no Soviet patsy...he was NOBODY'S patsy.
We involved ourselves in Vietnam in the first place by financing the French attempt to take the nation back as a colony and the French failed. We should've left it at that.
The Domino Theory was always hyperbole. If one looks at the Cold War, it's pretty damn obvious that we were far more aggressive than the Soviets. Our government told us one lie after another (Guatemala is a great example) about the Soviets trying to expand their influence in the third world, and nine times out of ten they were lying. Outside of their eastern European territory, the Soviets did little in attempting to expand their hegemony.
So the real truth is that we had no business in Vietnam and sending American men thousands of miles away to participate in a civil war in a nation that most Americans couldn't even find on a map.
The proof is in the pudding. When the North Vietnamese took over the whole country, did the Soviets overrun Asia? Was the United States all of a sudden plagued by so much communism that it threatened to strangle the West?
Nope. But keep believing all that right wing communist red scare Cold War tripe.
There's no such thing as leaving Iraq to early. If anything, we left years too late.
I agree we shouldn't have been there, but since we did we at least should have known they couldn't govern themselves after yrs of Saddam. We tore it up, we had the responsibility to do right by the people. Being selfish as you and Obama are is why ISIS gained control. The left thought taking all dictators out of the ME was a good thing, not realizing the dictators were killing people like Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood.
ome of the POWs who actually did meet with Jane Fonda, such as Edison Miller, have spoken out on the record over the years to disclaim the apocryphal stories about her
"The whole [e-mail] story about Jane Fonda is just malarkey," said Edison Miller, 73, of California, a former Marine Corps pilot held more than five years. Miller was among seven POWs who met with Fonda in Hanoi. He said he didn't recall her asking any questions other than about their names, if that. He said that he passed her no piece of paper, and that to his knowledge, no other POW in the group did, despite the e-mail's claims.
Col. Larry Carrigan, the U.S. serviceman whose name is invoked in the e-mailed reproduced at the head of this article, has affirmed that he neither claimed nor experienced any of what has been attributed to him, and that he never even met Jane Fonda:
"It's a figment of somebody's imagination." said Ret. Col. Larry Carrigan, one of the servicemen mentioned in the 'slips of paper' incident. Carrigan was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967 and did spend time in a POW camp. He has no idea why the story was attributed to him, saying, "I never met Jane Fonda." In 2005, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that Carrigan "is so tired of having to repeat that he wasn't beaten after Fonda's visit and that there were no beating deaths at that time that he won't talk to the media anymore."
The tale about a defiant serviceman who spit at Jane Fonda and was severely beaten as a result is often attributed to Air Force pilot Jerry Driscoll. He has also repeatedly stated on the record that it did not originate with him:
Driscoll said he never met Fonda, as the e-mail claims — and therefore, never spit on her and didn't suffer permanent double vision from a subsequent beating. "Totally false. It did not happen," Driscoll said.
it is already a known fact that she did in fact visit north Vietnam during a time of war between the USA and Vietnam, and gave help to the enemy. she should have had her citizenship revoked back then and not allowed back into the USA. that would have taken care of the problem right then and there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hanoi'd with Jane
