DogOnPorch Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Really? You're really going to compare fighting the Nazis in WWII to your imperial campaign against the people of Vietnam? You're really desperate for anything that will make you feel better about American aggression against third world countries. Maybe it's the fact that the US is regularly found to be the greatest threat to world peace in worldwide polling. A point of history here: It was North Viet-Nam that did the invading....Laos, Cambodia and of course, South Viet-Nam. The UN gave them a pass for it, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 The point is obvious, except for those who want to work their own agenda using the sweat and blood of those who served and are remembered. The grave markers don't say which ones fit your sanctimonious judgement on history and war. I knew two brothers (US vets) that both moved up here that were both part of the 'residual force' or whatever it was they called the guys stuck there after 1972. Those were sucky times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 A point of history here: It was North Viet-Nam that did the invading....Laos, Cambodia and of course, South Viet-Nam. The UN gave them a pass for it, too. Do you have an email subscription to pentagon talking points? It was mainly a civil war until after the US started ratcheting up the invasion. the fact remains that at least until the Tet Offensive of 1968, the enemy's order of battle inside South Vietnam was dominated by indigenous southerners relying on locally acquired weapons. According to the State Department's own 1965 white paper, which sought to prove that the war in Vietnam was nothing more than a case of aggression from North Vietnam, of the total of 95,000 to 115,000 communist insurgents believed operating inside South Vietnam, only 20,000 were characterized as communist "officers, soldiers, and technicians ... known to have entered South Vietnam under orders from Hanoi." As additional proof of external aggression the white paper went on to list Chinese, Soviet, and Czech weapons captured from the insurgents. (Sixteen helmets and an undisclosed number of socks of North Vietnamese manufacture also were listed.) Yet the number of foreign recoilless rifles, mortars, rocket launchers, rifles, pistols, and submachine guns totaled 115--or an average of one weapon for every 826--1,000 estimated insurgents! In fact, communist forces in South Vietnam in 1965 were armed almost exclusively with weapons and ammunition captured, stolen, or bribed from South Vietnamese army and security forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 The point is obvious, except for those who want to work their own agenda using the sweat and blood of those who served and are remembered. The grave markers don't say which ones fit your sanctimonious judgement on history and war. Yes, I admit to a devious agenda of wishing that western countries (yours, mostly, let's be honest) would stop interfering in and invading third world countries. Sorry if that sounds "sanctimonious". It's too bad that you and your brothers-in-arms are simple pawns in a great game that mostly benefits the wealthy, particularly the big players in the arms industry. It's even more regrettable that you can't even see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Yes, I admit to a devious agenda of wishing that western countries (yours, mostly, let's be honest) would stop interfering in and invading third world countries. Sorry if that sounds "sanctimonious". More revisionist thinking, now that you benefit from "interference" by the imperialist "western countries". The veterans are remembered for doing their duty whether it is an agenda you approve of or not. It's too bad that you and your brothers-in-arms are simple pawns in a great game that mostly benefits the wealthy, particularly the big players in the arms industry. It's even more regrettable that you can't even see it. Not only do I see it...I applaud and celebrate it. Peacemongers don't get national holidays of remembrance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Peacemongers don't get national holidays of remembrance. They get the memories and they never forget the warmongers who cock up the peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 They get the memories and they never forget the warmongers who cock up the peace. At the beginning of your empire's Great War, they got white feathers from feminists, never forgotten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 More revisionist thinking, now that you benefit from "interference" by the imperialist "western countries". Oh. Is ISIS a benefit to me? Or all the money the arms industry makes? Or are you telling me that dead civilians are a benefit? You need to be mores specific. The veterans are remembered for doing their duty whether it is an agenda you approve of or not. Too bad it's not the duty they're told it is. They're told they're protecting their countries, not enriching the arms industry. Not only do I see it...I applaud and celebrate it. Well, good for you. If you're going to be a pawn of the arms dealers, you might as well enjoy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Or all the money the arms industry makes? Or are you telling me that dead civilians are a benefit? You need to be mores specific. Yes it is...employment and a robust tax base to pay for all your "free" programs. That's why/how Canada made billions of dollars during the Vietnam War. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Do you have an email subscription to pentagon talking points? It was mainly a civil war until after the US started ratcheting up the invasion. Viet-Nam...Nam-Viet...Annam...etc...Viet-Nam was never a single country to have a civil war. However, the Soviet Union was deeply involved on the side of the North. Plus, the Boat People were the result of ethnically cleansing the South of most of the 'undesirables' like the Annam, Hmong, Cochin Chinese, etc. Annam...the 'Nam' part of Viet-Nam...was the South. the Kinh-Viet now make-up 80+% of the population. Your neighbour down the street is what is left of South Viet-Nam. North Viet-Nam did the invading...the Ho Chi Minh Trail...right through Laos and Cambodia. Plus, the outright invasion of South Viet-Nam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Offensive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Today in Vietnam they just call the 20 year period from 1955 to 1975 Kháng chiến chống Mỹ or simply the American War. If you visit and ask them why they hold no animosity towards Americans today they answer that it wasn't America's people who were fighting them but their government and it's real constituents, America's corporations. A lot of them attribute the end of the war to Americans who stood up to their government and told it to stop what it was doing. An amazing people the Vietnamese. It's a terrible terrible thing we did to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Viet-Nam...Nam-Viet...Annam...etc...Viet-Nam was never a single country to have a civil war. However, the Soviet Union was deeply involved on the side of the North. Plus, the Boat People were the result of ethnically cleansing the South of most of the 'undesirables' like the Annam, Hmong, Cochin Chinese, etc. Annam...the 'Nam' part of Viet-Nam...was the South. the Kinh-Viet now make-up 80+% of the population. Your neighbour down the street is what is left of South Viet-Nam. North Viet-Nam did the invading...the Ho Chi Minh Trail...right through Laos and Cambodia. Plus, the outright invasion of South Viet-Nam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Offensive Did you read your own link? It refers to an attack in 1973. Or are you saying that the US had a half million troops in 1968 as a result of a North Vietnamese invasion in 1973? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Today in Vietnam they just call the 20 year period from 1955 to 1975 Kháng chiến chống Mỹ or simply the American War. If you visit and ask them why they hold no animosity towards Americans today they answer that it wasn't America's people who were fighting them but their government and it's real constituents, America's corporations. A lot of them attribute the end of the war to Americans who stood up to their government and told it to stop what it was doing. An amazing people the Vietnamese. It's a terrible terrible thing we did to them. Amazing, yes. And apparently, much smarter than a lot of people here in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) Did you read your own link? It refers to an attack in 1973. Or are you saying that the US had a half million troops in 1968 as a result of a North Vietnamese invasion in 1973? The North Vietnamese started sending combat units down the Ho Ch Minh Trail into South Vietnam starting in 1959. US combat troops arrived as a result of the North Vietnamese attack on the Bien Hoa Airbase outside Saigon...these to protect US Airbases at first. When that proved ineffective, S&D operations began in the jungles outside the airbases....this took more troops...and then MORE troops....and even more troops. The 1972 Offensive was an overt crossing of the North/South Vietnamese border, not to mention the attacks from Laos and Cambodia. Mayhem followed only stopped by the massive use of South Vietnamese/US air power. Edited November 13, 2015 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 (edited) The Ho Chi Minh trail was less than a goat path in 1959. It was a month long hike. You keep on talking about the 1970's, well after the US invasion, and in fact, after the war was mostly lost. And it was well after the Gulf of Tonkin incident which has since been established to be a false flag event. The incident was staged to allow a pretense for US military escalation. Look. Of course, North Vietnam sent in soldiers. That's not the point. The point is were the South Vietnamese people more supportive of the corrupt tinpot dictators propped up by US military might or the Ho Chi Minh communists? It can't have been an appetizing choice but clearly, they were more supportive of the Communists. Otherwise, how can you explain how the south lost the war? The countries were of comparative population and in the south, the US dominated the air and sea. If the South Vietnamese didn't want the Communists, they would have defended their home. Instead, the Viet Cong (South Vietnamese communists) were actively fighting their own corrupt puppet government. The lesson that the military geniuses in Washington didn't seem to know (and still hadn't learned when they invaded Iraq) is if the locals don't want you, you won't last. And the reason they haven't learned is because the salaries of the "fortunate ones" in the military industrial complex depend on them not learning it! Edited November 14, 2015 by ReeferMadness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 There was no US invasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Escalation is an invasion that moves like a glacier as opposed to a blitzkrieg. The intent is precisely the same, to crush whatever's in its way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Indeed, as Canada was more than happy to "escalate" production of war materials destined for Vietnam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Escalation is an invasion that moves like a glacier as opposed to a blitzkrieg. The intent is precisely the same, to crush whatever's in its way. Other than the brief Lam Son 719, US troops remained in South Viet-Nam. North Viet-Nam was the invader and aggressor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 The Ho Chi Minh trail was less than a goat path in 1959. It was a month long hike. You keep on talking about the 1970's, well after the US invasion, and in fact, after the war was mostly lost. And it was well after the Gulf of Tonkin incident which has since been established to be a false flag event. The incident was staged to allow a pretense for US military escalation. Look. Of course, North Vietnam sent in soldiers. That's not the point. The point is were the South Vietnamese people more supportive of the corrupt tinpot dictators propped up by US military might or the Ho Chi Minh communists? It can't have been an appetizing choice but clearly, they were more supportive of the Communists. Otherwise, how can you explain how the south lost the war? The countries were of comparative population and in the south, the US dominated the air and sea. If the South Vietnamese didn't want the Communists, they would have defended their home. Instead, the Viet Cong (South Vietnamese communists) were actively fighting their own corrupt puppet government. The lesson that the military geniuses in Washington didn't seem to know (and still hadn't learned when they invaded Iraq) is if the locals don't want you, you won't last. And the reason they haven't learned is because the salaries of the "fortunate ones" in the military industrial complex depend on them not learning it! No true Scotsman. South Viet-Nam was a country as worthy as any other...particularly North Viet-Nam. Let me know what counts as an invasion. It isn't an invasion when Communist forces do it, apparently. Or am I just reading you wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) No true Scotsman. South Viet-Nam was a country as worthy as any other...particularly North Viet-Nam. Let me know what counts as an invasion. It isn't an invasion when Communist forces do it, apparently. Or am I just reading you wrong? First the US invaded. Then North Vietnam invaded to support an uprising in the south. The only way the North Vietnamese could have kicked out the Americans was that they had huge support by the indigenous population. If you're looking for me to support North Vietnam, you're going to be disappointed. However, the US didn't have the best interests of the South Vietnamese people when they propped up the puppet government. ETA: And while we're remembering, let's all take a moment to reflect on the idiotic domino theory and how the military industrial complex played it for all it was worth. Edited November 17, 2015 by ReeferMadness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Yes, I admit to a devious agenda of wishing that western countries (yours, mostly, let's be honest) would stop interfering in and invading third world countries. Sorry if that sounds "sanctimonious". It's too bad that you and your brothers-in-arms are simple pawns in a great game that mostly benefits the wealthy, particularly the big players in the arms industry. It's even more regrettable that you can't even see it. And you ReeferMadness, are so impoverished by these "big players in the arms industry", that you have time and money to post on this Internet forum. I think that you are complaining, Barbra Streisand style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) Really? You're really going to compare fighting the Nazis in WWII to your imperial campaign against the people of Vietnam? You're really desperate for anything that will make you feel better about American aggression against third world countries. Maybe it's the fact that the US is regularly found to be the greatest threat to world peace in worldwide polling. The US won the Cold War. The Vietnam War was an important battle in the defeat of the Soviet Union. I'm thankful for the fall of the Berlin Wall. Edited November 17, 2015 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 The US didn't invade any country in Indochina other than a token presence in the lone combat operation I mentioned into Laos to try and block the Trail. This failed. North Viet-Nam invaded the South/Laos/Cambodia starting in 1959. SEATO was more than just the US. Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, etc fought in the Viet-Nam War. Viet-Nam fell to the Communists...re: Domino Theory. The UN passed Resolution 413 to rubber stamp the conquest. Saigon was renamed and the South ethnically cleansed by the North. Nobody cared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) So much for remembering vets. My thought too. ===== And here's a thought to ReeferMadness: if someone dies so that someone else has more choices in life, then maybe it is "good". But if someone dies to restrict the choices of others, then it is "bad". Edited November 17, 2015 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.