On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:21:02 -0700 (PDT), David Walters wrote:

"aggression against the South"...HAHAHAHA. Attend any Confederate
reenactments of late?

Yeah... I fought for the Union. They are called "Civil War Reenactments,"
not "Confederate Reenactments." But how have those meetings you attend
with Stormfront been going for you?

What Planet Visitor II and the Poetic Justice don't get is that in
their attempt to re-fight the Vietnam war, they want to hold high the
'honor' of the US military. This is a joke.

What a crock of ****... you've forgotten that I denied the U.S. or the
U.S. military had any "honor" in the Vietnam War. It is enough to argue
FACTS rather than "moralist" views, since morality is in the eyes of
the beholder. If the U.S. military did not lose the war that has nothing
to do with "honor," but with facts. It is absurd to argue that the U.S.
MILITARY lost the war, given that military had the capacity to turn
North Vietnam into a parking lot.

"Honor" and "Dishonor," are subjective terms, since the Viet Cong thought
it was "Honor" to use the methods portrayed in "The Deer Hunter," against
American military they captured. In any case, a philosophical question for
you -- Is it better to win with dishonor, or to lose with honor??? What if
losing with honor brings slavery to every person that military fought for?
What if losing with honor means death??

No military fights exclusively as a gun-and-ammo war.

Do you make up these presumed "facts," as you go along? You claim the
Ho Chi Minh trail was superior to the U.S. military material supply line
and the material brought to the U.S. soldier in the field!! You're dreaming,
sonny. You never saw Cam Ranh Bay, when the U.S. military used it to unload
material used for that war.

The US attempted...actually the US
MILITARY attempted to win the 'hearts and minds' of the Vietnamese
living in the south...AND in this they FAILED, and did so miserably.

It was civilian policy to treat the Vietnamese decently. The military's
role is to fight and win, and that's been the role of EVERY military.
Killing a person when not at war is considered homicide, and often
considered murder under certain circumstances. Killing a person when
at war is usually considered heroism with extreme honor. Who are you
to claim you know better than some others? Are you the presumptive
infallible Pope??

The US Military attempted to stomp out the Vietnamese Resistance to
the occupation fo their country and they FAILED.

It did not exist when U.S. combat forces departed. Perhaps you missed
the signing of the Paris Peace Accord between Kissinger and Le Duc Tho.
That accord provided for a permanent end to the fighting between North
and South Vietnam. It was signed by North Vietnam, South Vietnam,
and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (the Viet Cong). The fact
that 2 and 1/2 years later, North Vietnam violated the terms of the very
agreement they were a party to does not make the U.S. military losers...
but does make the North Vietnamese guilty of violating a treaty they
were a party to. Where is the "honor" with THAT??

But gee... so did Hitler when he invaded Russia, so what's new?

If you wish to argue that the U.S. military lost the war because our
civilian leaders would no longer commit U.S. military after 2 and 1/2
years, I can argue that the French, the Germans, the Italians, the
Russians, and the Chinese MILITARY lost the war, since THEY didn't
commit their military forces to stop North Vietnam's violation of their
own peace accord. With the signing of that peace accord the U.S.
military had as little further obligation to defend South Vietnam as
did those other nations. How can you possibly have a military that
can lose a war, when there is NO military to lose it?

The US Military attempted to WIN...and they FAILED.

No proof offered. Your claim fails.

What part of FAILURE don't you understand.

Was that a question?? What part of a peace accord, and 2 and a 1/2 years
later don't you understand?

The Military is part and parcel of the overall state structure of the
U.S. that attempted, as a system of political economy, to turn Vietnam
into a colony.

Hardly. We beat Japan and we certainly didn't attempt to turn Japan
into a colony. The only nations that attempted to turn Vietnam into
a "colony" were FRANCE and JAPAN. Learn your history.

That the US Air Force was vastly superior to the
Vietnamese is has absolutely no importance in the way the Vietnamese
*fought* the occupation of their country. Giap, et al simply
understood this better than William Westmoreland, C. LeMay and LBJ.

No proof offered. Your claim fails.

In the overall battle the Vietnamese won. This means that all
components of the US Imperialist attempt to occupy Vietnam failed.
Again.

No proof offered. Your claim fails. But you have started to squawk a
little bit like a chicken.

The U.S. movement was critical to the victory of the Vietnamese though
there was never any actual connection of significance to this. It was
wishful thinking on the part of the Vietnamese gov't that if they
killed enough GIs, downed enough planes, caused the draft of millions
of youth, that the US would blink. Their wishful thinking was part of
this.

No proof offered. Your claim fails.

I was proud of the Vietnamese gov't

You sound a bit like the Viet Cong.

defeating my own gov't here in the U.S.

The U.S. military did not lose the war in Vietnam. Get that through your
silly childish head. Just how many bombs did North Vietnam drop on
New York City??? Or Los Angeles?

I was only 17

And still trying to get Susie to drop her knickers for you. What a
loser.

when the Vietnamese liberated what became Ho Chi Mihn City.

2 and 1/2 years after the last U.S. combat soldier left Vietnam. What
a _great victory_ when the enemy isn't there!! You really believe that
North Vietnam signed that peace treaty because they had the U.S.
military on the run. ROTFLMAO. Three men and a large dog could
have overrun South Vietnam 2 and 1/2 years AFTER every U.S. combat
military had departed Vietnam. Remember all those helicopters that
were thrown off of aircraft carriers when South Vietnam was overrun,
that the media managed to cover over and over? They were not ours...
they belonged to the South Vietnamese Army and Air Force, and we
would have never seen them again in any case. Except for the fact that
the VIETNAMESE used them to escape from the conquering hordes of
North Vietnamese taking revenge on South Vietnamese who did not
fall on their knees in prayer before the "conquering" North Vietnamese.
Tell me about "honor." If all the Vietnamese had welcomed the North
Vietnamese why was there such a crowd in front of the U.S. embassy?
The North Vietnam invasion of South Vietnam was followed by a
blood bath.... but then that's what you see as "honor."

Here's food for thought about that blood bath, which was delayed a
bit immediately after the conquest until the media found Vietnam not
that interesting any longer. See --
http://jim.com/ChomskyLiesCites/When...in_Vietnam.htm
Quote -- "THE BLOODBATH is motivated not so much by hatred or
revenge as by the necessity for the Communist system to purge itself
of undesirable elements From a Marxist viewpoint political purge is a
necessity in order to achieve political purity, a precondition to the
building of socialism. Political purity ensures single mindedness, which
in turn achieves high efficiency. The Vietnamese Communists, as they
showed in their conduct of the war, are doctrinaire single minded,
efficient. But not until all Vietnamese—men, women, and children think
the Communist way will political purity be achieved for the new nation
as a whole. This is why indoctrination “re-education” as they call it—is
of prime importance. For those who are too old or too stubborn to
change elimination is the only alternative."
Unquote.

So what brought about that bloodbath... he says it was _good ol' Socialism_.

I had a cork map of Vietnam and during the offensives,
despite massive bombings by the US in the south of their country, one
by one, each provincial capital fell to the liberation forces.

Sounds like you needed a pet, rather than a hobby using corks. In any
case, you did no such thing, since no U.S. military bombing took place
in North or South Vietnam following the Paris Peace Accord. The U.S.
combat role did not EXIST! The violation of that Peace Accord was
strictly a decision made by North Vietnam (which you consider "with
honor," no doubt). At no time during the invasion of South Vietnam
by North Vietnam did the U.S. military take any combat role, on the
ground or in the air. I think you're actually a 17-year-old, leaving a
life of fantasy, since you're certainly lying in this particular comment
of yours.

Just as I would be proud of the White Rose organization had I been a
German youth during WWII fighting for my own gov'ts defeat.

Talk is cheap. Just how many years were you in the U.S. military??

The real cause of the defeat of the US military in Vietnam was the
inability of people like those on this list who grovel in their own
form of self-pity in a vat of blind, know-nothing "patriotism". The
only patriots in this whole conflict where the Vietnamese youth,
workers and peasants who fought the US to a *standstill* and came out
victorious.

It appears that you just picked out words at random to form that
comment. It doesn't seem like you've progressed intellectually since
that hobby you had with the corks. You certainly have a very loose
grasp of English, considering you use the word "where" when the
word "were," is appropriate. Giving two entirely different meanings
to your comment above, you silly child.

Happy to Help.

Planet Visitor II