- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No, that's really just entering that sleazy kind of territory where, when evidence doesn't exist, scandals are kept afloat by replacing accusations with questions. Example: "I'm not saying that you're mother's a whore, but isn't it interesting that she always has money? What? I'm just asking questions." It's a disgraceful thing to add to any discussion.
But there are those many photos of her smiling and all cuddly on the VietNamese anti-aircraft gun.Fair enough, but I still feel that the way she behaved was bordering on treason. She was definitely not considered "friendly" by most of the troops I believe.
She brought it on herself. No one is under any obligation to clean up a reputation she soiled herself. Her own actions make the question credible.eace
But there are those many photos of her smiling and all cuddly on the VietNamese anti-aircraft gun.
That was so special ... so endearing.
Man oh man is that ever appropriate these days.No one who knowingly perpetuates lies has the right to criticize another person's reputation or credibility. Anyone who does has abandoned all principles.
No one who knowingly perpetuates lies has the right to criticize another person's reputation or credibility. Anyone who does has abandoned all principles.
Well I guess that's the point: there's no way to establish the truth of the matter.eace
I would ask you how we win our current/recent wars, but not wanting to wander off topic too much.
To stay on topic then, how could we have "won Vietnam?" It surely wasn't for lack of trying.
The war was against the spread of the red contagion worldwide. Do you have another opinion?I was in Country as well. I hated Hanoi Jane for a few years until I found out what the war was about and then my hatred moved to the politics that sent us over there. At least she tried to stop the war, better than most and infinitely better than scumbag Nugent. Her heart was in the right place but her mind was not yet mature. She has been consistent throughout her very public life and supported some very good causes. I forgive her for youthful indiscretion.
No, you didn't use the whole quote and certainly you can use Fonda\s part in comparison with the war itself. I'm just asking that you don't do it with me because I'm not interested in your synopsis and therefore a waste of time. Maybe someone else cares.I did use your whole quote. And if I want to look at Jane Fonda's actions in relation (and comparison) to the war itself, I will do that, thank you very much.
Many appear to hold Republicans responsible for Vietnam. Of course Fonda and her husband were also Democrats.And the point of them being Democrats is...?
But of course that is not part of the conversation. We are discussing those who are alive and how they were treated and Jane Fonda's role in all of it. Wandering off topic that way doesn't enhance the flow of debate.That would be of little comfort to the 58,000 American soldiers killed in the war.
It was never about communism versus capitalism, it was communism versus human rights and freedoms. But claiming it was against 'capitalism' made a better argument for totalitarianism.The treatment by civilians against soldiers was disgusting and indefensible, and you won't see me claim otherwise. As for "the right reasons," I don't believe going to war over ideology and economics (capitalism vs. communism) are valid reasons, but I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
I totally agree.It was never about communism versus capitalism, it was communism versus human rights and freedoms. But claiming it was against 'capitalism' made a better argument for totalitarianism.
Just google something like 'america could have won vietnam' or something similar, and you will see dozens of articles on the subject. Anti American propaganda won that war, with America also turning on itself and its leaders.
The Vietnam War was much like the Korean War and a part of the Cold War. Of course it never would have been fought without the enemy being international communism, a movement which largely got a free pass in the US and European MSM, and often still does.
Many of those communist leaders are forgotten today while the names of 'Tricky Dicky Nixon' and 'Ronald Raygun' are still familiar to everyone. The anti American propaganda campaign was the greatest and most successful in world history, and Hanoi Jane Fonda and her husband played a significant part in it.
If the United States had provided that level of support in 1975, when South Vietnam collapsed in the face of another North Vietnamese offensive,
the outcome might have been at least the same as in 1972....In 1974-75, the United States snatched defeat from the jaws of victory
The war we could have won http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/opinion/01morris.html
The war was against the spread of the red contagion worldwide. Do you have another opinion?
No, you didn't use the whole quote and certainly you can use Fonda\s part in comparison with the war itself. I'm just asking that you don't do it with me because I'm not interested in your synopsis and therefore a waste of time. Maybe someone else cares.
Many appear to hold Republicans responsible for Vietnam. Of course Fonda and her husband were also Democrats.
But of course that is not part of the conversation. We are discussing those who are alive and how they were treated and Jane Fonda's role in all of it. Wandering off topic that way doesn't enhance the flow of debate.
I would ask you how we win our current/recent wars, but not wanting to wander off topic too much.
To stay on topic then, how could we have "won Vietnam?" It surely wasn't for lack of trying.
Thanks, Annata. There are a whole lot of google articles of varying opinions here https://www.google.ca/search?q=amer...firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=BUGBUua2FMblyQHrt4DwBg It was a very painful time in American history and I don;t know if it worthwhile going through the whole thing again. I certainly don't pretend to be an expert but i do like to some some research when I feel that propaganda is being used, as it certainly was.with all due respect, i took you up on this. This is the best and really only "what if" I could find, please let me know if you have a better source.i tried to find the salient phrase or 2, that actually claims if the US hadn't withdrawn support; somehow the ARVN forces could have stepped up and defeated, and unified Vietnam.
They've done that in Europe but the troops could have left for deployment Vietnam rather than remaining scattered across Europe, well after the time they became essential.. It seems we have learned to much from Vietnam and not enough from WWII.While it's true the US forces never lost a battle (as commonly stated) the US couldn't stay there in perpetuity.
Nixon's idea was "Vietnamization"; very similar to the 'transition' we are trying to accomplish as the ISAF forces withdrawl from Afganistan.
That's what you do in a war until the enemy retreats.I don't buy either premise. It's not like we didn't give our all in Vietnam -
the prosecution of the war was escalated to carpet bombing, mining Hanoi's harbor, etc.
The war was lost in the United States, not in VietnamThere isn't anything I can think of we didn't do that would have turned that war around, to the point the S. Vietnamese could have taken control of the country
The same thing is going to happen in Afganistan, if history is any guide.
As we leave security forces in place to somehow support the Afgan national forces; the Afgani forces have to be able to withstand the Talban.
The similarity of the Taliban to the Vietnam's Viet Cong, and the NVA is that those forces are more dedicated to winning.
That's what happened in Vietnam; no matter how much longer we stayed, in the end the S. Vietnamese didn't want to win badly enough.Not being able to see the future, but seeing this template in play in Vietnam, i would assume, the same situtation will happen in Afg. The Taliban are more dedicated to winning, and seizing the gov't -
even as the existing representative western style gov't in place is makig plans for a support role for the Talban.
In other words; both the V.C. and the Taliban were/are not going to settle for any power sharing arrangement
The 'middle' doesn't seem to exist for the left. You are with them, right wing, or extreme right wing. Most leftists probably didn't give this much thought, but Saul Alinsky did.
...It was never about communism versus capitalism, it was communism versus human rights and freedoms. But claiming it was against 'capitalism' made a better argument for totalitarianism.
Suggest reading "Embers of War" and "A Solider Reports".with all due respect, i took you up on this. This is the best and really only "what if" I could find, please let me know if you have a better source.
i tried to find the salient phrase or 2, that actually claims if the US hadn't withdrawn support;
somehow the ARVN forces could have stepped up and defeated, and unified Vietnam.
China and the USSR had resupplied and rearmed the relative new army of North Vietnam while American law prevented us from adequately supplying the South Vietnam Army. It's amazing they fought as well as they did.
While it's true the US forces never lost a battle (as commonly stated) the US couldn't stay there in perpetuity.
Nixon's idea was "Vietnamization"; very similar to the 'transition' we are trying to accomplish as the ISAF forces withdrawl from Afganistan.
Why not? We still have troops in Korea and Europe.
I don't buy either premise. It's not like we didn't give our all in Vietnam -
the prosecution of the war was escalated to carpet bombing, mining Hanoi's harbor, etc.
We did not come close to giving it our all in that war. We didn't even employ a sound strategy because of self imposed political constraints. Even then, what we did worked until we quit.
There isn't anything I can think of we didn't do that would have turned that war around,
to the point the S. Vietnamese could have taken control of the country.
It's very possible that there isn't anything you can think of for us to win the war. But that doesn't mean things were not available. But regardless, we did turn it around with our combat troops.
The same thing is going to happen in Afganistan, if history is any guide.
As we leave security forces in place to somehow support the Afgan national forces; the Afgani forces have to be able to withstand the Talban.
The similarity of the Taliban to the Vietnam's Viet Cong, and the NVA is that those forces are more dedicated to winning.
The German SS and even the German Army was far more dedicated to winning than our Army was. Why? Simple. Fight the enemy until you die or take one in the head from us, plus family repercussions. Same with North Vietnam. But we won WWII because of determined political leadership.
That's what happened in Vietnam; no matter how much longer we stayed, in the end the S. Vietnamese didn't want to win badly enough.
Of course they did. But without beans and bullets, they didn't stand a chance.
Not being able to see the future, but seeing this template in play in Vietnam, i would assume, the same situtation will happen in Afg.
The Taliban are more dedicated to winning, and seizing the gov't -
even as the existing representative western style gov't in place is makig plans for a support role for the Talban.
In other words; both the V.C. and the Taliban were/are not going to settle for any power sharing arrangement
Of course they will and both have. And you said VC but I'm guessing you also mean North Vietnam (not the same as VC).
If you enjoy researching history and the meaning of words then you'll know that it was the Communists, not the Americans and their Allies, who were 'imperialistic'. The evidence is all there, from Eastern Europe, to Africa, Central America, South America and, of course, Asia. To say that it was the Americans who were the Imperialists is straight ahead nonsense.The war was an imperialistic aggression to keep Vietnam under Western control, especially the ocean area and shipping channels around South Vietnam.
Ho Chi Minh actually requested US aid after WWII to help stabilize his country. The Red Contagion must be what is operating in Vietnam today because they won the war. I don't see any problems or threats from Vietnam, must be overblown conspiracy theories by radical right wing, neocon nutjobs, eh.
If that was true the USA's political establishment would not have supported so many regimes that abused human rights as much as any communist regime. We also wouldn't have overthrown democratically elected governments that had good human rights records just because they were socialist or hostile to foreign businesses.
The war was an imperialistic aggression to keep Vietnam under Western control, especially the ocean area and shipping channels around South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh actually requested US aid after WWII to help stabilize his country. The Red Contagion must be what is operating in Vietnam today because they won the war. I don't see any problems or threats from Vietnam, must be overblown conspiracy theories by radical right wing, neocon nutjobs, eh.
If you enjoy researching history and the meaning of words then you'll know that it was the Communists, not the Americans and their Allies, who were 'imperialistic'. The evidence is all there, from Eastern Europe, to Africa, Central America, South America and, of course, Asia. To say that it was the Americans who were the Imperialists is straight ahead nonsense.
Wow! It was the communists who were the threat and they managed to murder over 100 million people, plus destroy the lies of millions more. You seriously don't know this, despite all the information having been released since the USSR collapsed?
Of course he did, why wouldn't he? That would have left him holding just about all of the cards. His request wasn't because he was a nice, peaceful guy. He knew he was going to murder plenty of people either way but with our backing it would have made things easier and quicker for him to turn all of the people of Vietnam into communist puppets.
French are French. Americans are Americans.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?