A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » Europe
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks onthe Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old April 1st, 2013, 05:58 PM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
David Walters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default "..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attackson the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."

They had bases, air ops, special ops, etc. throughout and up to
liberation. The "Vietnamesation" of the war was the result of the
military unable to win. But the "2 1/2 years" as you put it was the
result of the DoD having a losing strategy and unable to complete it's
mission...what ever that was at any given time, but generally to keep
the south of Vietnam carved out of the Vietnamese nation. It failed to
do that.

The U.S. lost the war. We tried to dictate to another people how they
should live. We tried to divide a nation in two thinking that a German
or Korean solution was the answer. Our gov't screwed up and should of
learned the *political* lessons of the French defeat.

D.
  #32  
Old April 1st, 2013, 10:50 PM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 252
Default "..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks on the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:37:18 -0400, Planet Visitor II
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:46:53 +0100, Bill wrote:

You're not dealing with some snotty kid still wet behind the ears
here.


Hippies were well fortified with their own invented facts.


Me, a hippy!

You been smokin' some of that weed again boy?

I remember the headlines at the time.


Ah, yes... the good ol' media. Dan Rather and Co.


Not where I live boy.

And at the time everyone was fully aware that it was a conference
cynically designed to get the US out of Vietnam and South Vietnam, who
didn't get a voice at the conference, would be left to rot.


"Everyone"???


Yes everyone.

No exceptions...

Let's cut to the chase. Are you claiming that the U.S. military LOST
the war in Vietnam, in the face of for 2 and a half years not having
a single combat boot on the ground, and not having dropped a single
bomb in any air strike on North or South Vietnam???


Ran away and left their allies to the mercy of the bloody handed
Communists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2935347.stm

The US Armed Forces never lost a battle, but armies only fight
battles.

Countries fight wars, and the USA lost this one...
  #33  
Old April 2nd, 2013, 07:00 AM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
Planet Visitor II[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default "..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks on the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 09:58:54 -0700 (PDT), David Walters wrote:

They had bases, air ops, special ops, etc. throughout and up to
liberation.


Wrong. There was only an embassy staff of military and a few
advisors who were not armed or engaged in any offensive act
toward the Viet Cong or North Vietnam, when North Vietnam
illegally invaded South Vietnam.

The "Vietnamesation" of the war was the result of the
military unable to win. But the "2 1/2 years" as you put it was the
result of the DoD having a losing strategy and unable to complete it's
mission...what ever that was at any given time, but generally to keep
the south of Vietnam carved out of the Vietnamese nation. It failed to
do that.


South Vietnam had been "carved out" of North Vietnam for 2 and 1/2
years; while North Vietnam recovered from Linebacker II, and rearmed
sufficiently to strike out illegally against South Vietnam. What is
interesting is that you SUPPORT illegal war. It makes it likely that
you support in historical terms the Nazi illegal invasion of Poland.
After all, if you support one illegal war, everyone can see that you
have no problem supporting illegal wars.

The U.S. lost the war. We tried to dictate to another people how they
should live. We tried to divide a nation in two thinking that a German
or Korean solution was the answer. Our gov't screwed up and should of
learned the *political* lessons of the French defeat.


Arguing with people like you is like arguing Christ is not the Son of God,
with a Christian.

You spew out some rubbish that you demand be accepted as "fact from
God almighty," then draw your own conclusion and insist that the world is
flat. The 2 and a 1/2 years was a result of a SIGNED peace treaty!!
This is not an opinion, as all your comment are... this is a FACT!!

It is also a FACT that not one U.S. military combat boot had been on
the ground in South Vietnam for 2 and 1/2 years, before the ILLEGAL
invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam. Those are irrefutable
FACTS, rather than your obviously biased anti-American opinion.
It takes a lot of chutzpah on your part to ignore those facts, and
develop your own separate *flat-earth* set of facts (sic).

We did not violate that peace treaty; and had North Vietnam not
invaded South Vietnam, South Vietnam *could be* as successful as
South Korea, if it ever managed to eliminate it's corrupt government.
Or do you insist that would be impossible because you think the South
Vietnamese were not as desirous in the 1970s of economic prosperity
as were the South Koreans of 1960?

After all, South Korea did it, and Syngman Rhee is a distant memory,
being removed by a PEACEFUL revolution (the April 19th Student Revolution
of 1960). Are you claiming that the South Vietnamese were ALL
corrupt, and only opposed North Vietnam's illegal invasion because
they were ALL corrupt?? Are you claiming that the South Vietnamese
could have NEVER been as successful as South Korea in ridding herself
of a corrupt government? What an insult to the South Vietnamese!!

So instead you insult the South Vietnamese and the U.S. military; while there
was not a U.S. combat boot on the ground when North Vietnam VIOLATED
the terms of the very agreement THEY were a party to and invaded
North Vietnam.


Planet Visitor II


D.

  #34  
Old April 2nd, 2013, 07:19 AM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
Planet Visitor II[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default "..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks on the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 07:35:07 -0700 (PDT), David Walters wrote:

On Mar 31, 6:06*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:

In point of fact, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong "blinked first" by
returning to the peace table, knowing full well that if they didn't they
would suffer an enormous destruction from the air with a Linebacker
III.


"Blinked"? Hahahaha. They knew *exactly* what they did and the fake
'blink' was the US blinking thinking it had expunged the sovereignty
of the Vietnamese people.


No proof offered. Your claim fails.

The US could *not* defeat Vietnam militarily


You are obviously trying to refer to "North Vietnam," but the spittle
rolled off of your lower lip onto your hand over the keyboard and in
the process of wiping it away you neglected to specific which part
of Vietnam you were referring to.

In any case, your comment is all bull****. The U.S. MILITARY had
ALREADY brought North Vietnam to her knees with Linebacker II.

but they could force them to the negotiating table. The Vietnamese
needed the extra time, and, they didn't feel any form of "Treaty" that
was being forced down their throat was at all legit, given the sheer
number of civilian deaths in the north and south of the country.


Now you're just babbling incoherently.

The US had zero right to negotiate a damn thing and deservedly got
booted out of Vietnam along with their puppet government.


Prove it. Since if that were the case, North Vietnam would have not
negotiated with the U.S. regarding a peace treaty. The North
Vietnamese seemed to believe the U.S. had a right to negotiate,
as did the Viet Cong. Who are you to tell the North Vietnamese
what to believe??

The US was
defeated politically which means that all aspects of the war there
were defeated, including the *total inability* of the US war machine
to *win*. The military *lost* as much as the political side lost, as
they were one and the same.


No proof offered. Your claim fails.

Dinosaur historians as you've all seen here love to argue that US
never 'lost', as if abstracting battles and engagement constitutes a
"war".


Gee... a kill ratio of 10 to 1 tends to argue there was a "war," and
the side killing 10 to losing 1... was the winner.

War is, as Clausewitz, politics by other means.


That's why the North Vietnamese came to the political peace agreement
in Paris.

Who won?


The question regards the claim that the U.S. MILITARY lost the
war. If it was politics, it wasn't the U.S. MILITARY. The U.S.
MILITARY is lawfully prohibited from MAKING political decisions.
They can only advise. After all, remember that Truman sacked
MacArthur.

Vietnam.


You mean North or South??? You're babbling again.

Who lost? The U.S. And the world was better off for it.


No proof offered. Your claim fails. But it's interesting you speak
of Clausewitz. Was he in favor of illegal wars? Because you obviously
are! How about that Hitler invasion of Russia while there was a
"peace treaty" between the two? Support one illegal war with a
peace treaty in existence being violated... support all illegal war with
a peace treaty in existence being violated.

Planet Visitor II

David

  #35  
Old April 2nd, 2013, 07:36 AM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
Planet Visitor II[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default "..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks on the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:50:27 +0100, Bill wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:37:18 -0400, Planet Visitor II
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:46:53 +0100, Bill wrote:

You're not dealing with some snotty kid still wet behind the ears
here.


Hippies were well fortified with their own invented facts.


Me, a hippy!

You been smokin' some of that weed again boy?


I'm not your "boy." Apparently you were spitting on those marching in the Birmingham
Civil Rights protest.

I remember the headlines at the time.


Ah, yes... the good ol' media. Dan Rather and Co.


Not where I live boy.


Oh, yeah... right from the KKK.

And at the time everyone was fully aware that it was a conference
cynically designed to get the US out of Vietnam and South Vietnam, who
didn't get a voice at the conference, would be left to rot.


"Everyone"???


Yes everyone.

No exceptions...


Since I know a great number of people, and I include myself, as disagreeing
with your conclusion, it is proven to be an inaccurate claim.

Let's cut to the chase. Are you claiming that the U.S. military LOST
the war in Vietnam, in the face of for 2 and a half years not having
a single combat boot on the ground, and not having dropped a single
bomb in any air strike on North or South Vietnam???


Ran away and left their allies to the mercy of the bloody handed
Communists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2935347.stm


And how long did the English run away from the bloody handed
Nazis, and wait to reclaim Europe from the Nazis and end the
Holocaust? Let's see... Dunkirk --ended June 1940. WW II -
ended 8 May 1945. Give it a month less than FIVE YEARS. Twice
as long as it took the North Vietnamese to illegally invade South
Vietnam. Left Europe to the bloody handed Nazis for five years.
Since we're now throwing stones. Not only that... you needed
HELP from the U.S. military.

The US Armed Forces never lost a battle, but armies only fight
battles.


And there you have it. Agreement with my comment that "the U.S.
MILITARY DID NOT lose the war in Vietnam." Pay careful attention
to the wording of that claim.

Countries fight wars, and the USA lost this one...


My comments have always referred to the U.S. MILTARY. Whatever
political choices were made has nothing to do with the U.S. MILITARY,
since by law the U.S. MILITARY does not make political decisions of
ANY kind. They can only advise those who do make such political
decisions.


Planet Visitor II
  #36  
Old April 2nd, 2013, 12:04 PM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 252
Default "..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks on the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 02:36:23 -0400, Planet Visitor II
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:50:27 +0100, Bill wrote:


The US Armed Forces never lost a battle, but armies only fight
battles.


And there you have it. Agreement with my comment that "the U.S.
MILITARY DID NOT lose the war in Vietnam." Pay careful attention
to the wording of that claim.

Countries fight wars, and the USA lost this one...


My comments have always referred to the U.S. MILTARY. Whatever
political choices were made has nothing to do with the U.S. MILITARY,
since by law the U.S. MILITARY does not make political decisions of
ANY kind. They can only advise those who do make such political
decisions.


Utter lunacy.

The USA was well thrashed.

If the politicians tell you to run away the army runs away.

It remains beaten...

'The stab in the back' remains a fiction used by defeated armies
throughout history.

Face it son, you got whipped...

  #37  
Old April 2nd, 2013, 01:41 PM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
chatnoir
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default "..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attackson the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."

On Apr 2, 12:36*am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:50:27 +0100, Bill wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:37:18 -0400, Planet Visitor II
wrote:


On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:46:53 +0100, Bill wrote:


You're not dealing with some snotty kid still wet behind the ears
here.


Hippies were well fortified with their own invented facts.


Me, *a hippy!


You been smokin' some of that weed again boy?


I'm not your "boy." *Apparently you were spitting on those marching in the Birmingham
Civil Rights protest.

I remember the headlines at the time.


Ah, yes... the good ol' media. *Dan Rather and Co.


Not where I live boy.


Oh, yeah... right from the KKK.

And at the time everyone was fully aware that it was a conference
cynically designed to get the US out of Vietnam and South Vietnam, who
didn't get a voice at the conference, would be left to rot.


"Everyone"???


Yes everyone.


No exceptions...


Since I know a great number of people, and I include myself, as disagreeing
with your conclusion, it is proven to be an inaccurate claim.

Let's cut to the chase. *Are you claiming that the U.S. military LOST
the war in Vietnam, in the face of for 2 and a half years not having
a single combat boot on the ground, and not having dropped a single
bomb in any air strike on North or South Vietnam???


Ran away and left their allies to the mercy of the bloody handed
Communists.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...21/newsid_2935...


And how long did the English run away from the bloody handed
Nazis, and wait to reclaim Europe from the Nazis and end the
Holocaust? *Let's see... Dunkirk --ended June 1940. *WW II -
ended 8 May 1945. *Give it a month less than FIVE YEARS. *Twice
as long as it took the North Vietnamese to illegally invade South
Vietnam. *Left Europe to the bloody handed Nazis for five years.
Since we're now throwing stones. *Not only that... you needed
HELP from the U.S. military.

The US Armed Forces never lost a battle, *but armies only fight
battles.


And there you have it. *Agreement with my comment that "the U.S.
MILITARY DID NOT lose the war in Vietnam." *Pay careful attention
to the wording of that claim.

Countries fight wars, *and the USA lost this one...


My comments have always referred to the U.S. MILTARY. *Whatever
political choices were made has nothing to do with the U.S. MILITARY,
since by law the U.S. MILITARY does not make political decisions of
ANY kind. *They can only advise those who do make such political
decisions.

Planet Visitor II


LOL
  #38  
Old April 5th, 2013, 04:50 AM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
Planet Visitor II[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default "..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks on the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:04:04 +0100, Bill wrote:

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 02:36:23 -0400, Planet Visitor II
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:50:27 +0100, Bill wrote:


The US Armed Forces never lost a battle, but armies only fight
battles.


And there you have it. Agreement with my comment that "the U.S.
MILITARY DID NOT lose the war in Vietnam." Pay careful attention
to the wording of that claim.


deathly silence

Countries fight wars, and the USA lost this one...


My comments have always referred to the U.S. MILTARY. Whatever
political choices were made has nothing to do with the U.S. MILITARY,
since by law the U.S. MILITARY does not make political decisions of
ANY kind. They can only advise those who do make such political
decisions.


Utter lunacy.


In other words, you have nothing rational to offer. Have you considered
banging your shoe on the rostrum at the UN??

The USA was well thrashed.


I guess we should have nuked Hanoi. Would you then claim the U.S.
Military had not lost the war in Vietnam??

If the politicians tell you to run away the army runs away.

The only ones who "ran away" were the South Vietnamese, two
and a half years after the last American combat boot had left South
Vietnam, or any combat action in Vietnam had taken place. Then
the North Vietnamese ILLEGALLY invaded South Vietnam. I suppose
your argument is that because the North Vietnamese ILLEGALLY
invaded South Vietnam, and violated a peace agreement forged with
the U.S., the U.S. MILITARY SHOULD HAVE used a nuke against Hanoi,
and since the U.S. MILITARY DIDN'T - that's your "proof" they lost
the war.

It remains beaten...


Oh... the agony of de feet. Perhaps you're ****ed that the U.S. Military
didn't return to Vietnam as a result of the ILLEGAL invasion of South
Vietnam by the North Vietnamese, in order to kill a few more million
Vietnamese to satisfy your bloodlust. Yeah... I can see why you'd
consider the U.S. military "lost." We didn't kill enough of the Vietnamese
people to satisfy that bloodlust of yours, and killing ten Vietnamese
for every American lost just isn't enough for you, since you expect the
"winner" to kill at least 100 to 1. Of course, we could have done
10,000 to 1 with that good ol' nuke that you "wish" we had used so
you could call us "winners." What's a few POWs being killed as
"collateral damage," in nuking Hanoi, as far as you're concerned???

'The stab in the back' remains a fiction used by defeated armies
throughout history.


Well, you are the "master of fiction."

Face it son, you got whipped...


Considering that you were still trying to get Susie into dropping her
knickers in the third grade when the Vietnam war raged, how would
you know, little man?



Planet Visitor II
  #39  
Old April 5th, 2013, 04:51 AM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
Planet Visitor II[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default "..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks on the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 05:41:01 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir wrote:

On Apr 2, 12:36*am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:50:27 +0100, Bill wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:37:18 -0400, Planet Visitor II
wrote:


On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:46:53 +0100, Bill wrote:


You're not dealing with some snotty kid still wet behind the ears
here.


Hippies were well fortified with their own invented facts.


Me, *a hippy!


You been smokin' some of that weed again boy?


I'm not your "boy." *Apparently you were spitting on those marching in the Birmingham
Civil Rights protest.

I remember the headlines at the time.


Ah, yes... the good ol' media. *Dan Rather and Co.


Not where I live boy.


Oh, yeah... right from the KKK.

And at the time everyone was fully aware that it was a conference
cynically designed to get the US out of Vietnam and South Vietnam, who
didn't get a voice at the conference, would be left to rot.


"Everyone"???


Yes everyone.


No exceptions...


Since I know a great number of people, and I include myself, as disagreeing
with your conclusion, it is proven to be an inaccurate claim.

Let's cut to the chase. *Are you claiming that the U.S. military LOST
the war in Vietnam, in the face of for 2 and a half years not having
a single combat boot on the ground, and not having dropped a single
bomb in any air strike on North or South Vietnam???


Ran away and left their allies to the mercy of the bloody handed
Communists.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...21/newsid_2935...


And how long did the English run away from the bloody handed
Nazis, and wait to reclaim Europe from the Nazis and end the
Holocaust? *Let's see... Dunkirk --ended June 1940. *WW II -
ended 8 May 1945. *Give it a month less than FIVE YEARS. *Twice
as long as it took the North Vietnamese to illegally invade South
Vietnam. *Left Europe to the bloody handed Nazis for five years.
Since we're now throwing stones. *Not only that... you needed
HELP from the U.S. military.

The US Armed Forces never lost a battle, *but armies only fight
battles.


And there you have it. *Agreement with my comment that "the U.S.
MILITARY DID NOT lose the war in Vietnam." *Pay careful attention
to the wording of that claim.

Countries fight wars, *and the USA lost this one...


My comments have always referred to the U.S. MILTARY. *Whatever
political choices were made has nothing to do with the U.S. MILITARY,
since by law the U.S. MILITARY does not make political decisions of
ANY kind. *They can only advise those who do make such political
decisions.

Planet Visitor II


LOL


Tell that to MacArthur, and his policy of "In war there is no substitute for victory."
That was the policy of the U.S. military until Truman decided that it wasn't. And
the world did a flip-flop at that moment. Truman forgot that he only became
a national figure because Roosevelt died. And Roosevelt's policy went right along
with MacArthur's with his "unconditional surrender."

Anyone who would argue that the Soviets were actually going to enter into a war
with the U.S. if the U.S. decided to use a nuclear weapon to exterminate the
communist leadership of Communist China in one fell swoop, is living in fairy land.

In April 1951, the Soviets would have been shaking in their boots at the thought
of engaging the U.S. in a nuclear war, or coming to the defense of a leaderless
China, being threatened by both the U.S. nuclear might and the Chinese
Nationalists rag-tag army being reinvigorated.


Planet Visitor II
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DC rally by conservatives: "tens of thousands?" "three hundredthousand?" "five hundred thousand?" "A million people came?" The only thingagreed upon was that it was a "vast crowd" and it spells big tr O'Donovan, PJ, Himself Europe 16 August 31st, 2010 04:16 AM
"President" B. Hussein Obama "likely" to speak about attempted Xmas09 Muslim terror attack in "next few days" PJ O'Donovan[_3_] Europe 0 December 28th, 2009 12:05 PM
The First 100 days: Will Barack Hussein Obama Say "Ich bin einMuslimer " oder "Ich bin ein Dhimmi ?" PJ O'Donovan Europe 7 January 28th, 2009 09:25 PM
"liberalism" to "socialism" to "communism": The "end" justifies the "means" in America PJ O'Donovan[_1_] Europe 5 February 24th, 2007 04:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.