Remember Vietnam !!

[aezael]

We the people are a lot larger than a small country than Vietnam and
we will fight against a political foe who is trying to make us into a
socialist notion. Never again should this country allow a person
who has no birth certificate no records of schools and no political
representatives to question his ability to be the President of the
United States. When the next election comes if it does I will vote
against every politician for his opponent.

And God help us if Obama issues another "Executive Order"

[whoyakidding's ghost]

http://www.vagabondish.com/signspotting-15-off-sale-tinfoil-hats-wellington-new-zealand/

[Make Clint s day: Change his Depends.]

On 4/10/2013 12:28 PM, aezael wrote:
>

That is where America's mighty war machine got it's
ass kicked by a bunch of cave and tunnel dwellers ?

umm.. sounds familiar doesn't it ?

[Gunner Asch]

Evidently you lads went to Liberal run schools..didnt you?

Or were you out smoking dope during history class?

America didnt get its ass kicked in Nam.

The South Vietnamese did however..the moment the Democrats cut off aid
to them.

Gunner

[George Plimpton]

On 4/13/2013 4:13 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:58:52 -0500, "Make Clint s day: Change his
> Depends." <al...@asdk.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/2013 12:28 PM, aezael wrote:
>>>
>>
>> That is where America's mighty war machine got it's
>> ass kicked by a bunch of cave and tunnel dwellers ?
>>
>> umm.. sounds familiar doesn't it ?
>>
>
> Evidently you lads went to Liberal run schools..didnt you?
>
> Or were you out smoking dope during history class?
>
> America didnt get its ass kicked in Nam.

America didn't suffer a military defeat in Vietnam, but absolutely it
suffered a political defeat. Strategically, it was neither victory nor
defeat.

>
> The South Vietnamese did however..the moment the Democrats cut off aid

It is a myth, one of many about America in Vietnam, that South Vietnam
collapsed because of an aid "cutoff". (The other major myth is that
American soldiers were "spit on" when they returned. It never happened
- utter hogwash.) There was no "cutoff" of aid:
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/126150.html

[�Jones]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:15:46 -0700, in talk.politics.guns George
Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>America didn't suffer a military defeat in Vietnam, but absolutely it
>suffered a political defeat. Strategically, it was neither victory nor

>defeat. It is a myth, one of many about America in Vietnam, that South Vietnam

>collapsed because of an aid "cutoff". (The other major myth is that
>American soldiers were "spit on" when they returned. It never happened
>- utter hogwash.) There was no "cutoff" of aid:
>http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/126150.html

I was in Saigon about 37 years ago; I can't listen to "White
Christmas" without thinking about it.

It looked like a defeat from where I was standing.

I never witnessed any spitting incidents; however, there is one well
documented incident of a Vietnam Veteran spitting on a celebrity
Vietnam war protestor.

Jones

[stooges@bass.gov Mike Watt]

"�Jones" wrote in message
news:v72jm853n9gntohqe...@4ax.com...

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:15:46 -0700, in talk.politics.guns George
Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>America didn't suffer a military defeat in Vietnam, but absolutely it
>suffered a political defeat. Strategically, it was neither victory nor
>defeat. It is a myth, one of many about America in Vietnam, that South
>Vietnam
>collapsed because of an aid "cutoff". (The other major myth is that
>American soldiers were "spit on" when they returned. It never happened
>- utter hogwash.) There was no "cutoff" of aid:
>http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/126150.html

I was in Saigon about 37 years ago;

####
Stop lying you retard!

[George Plimpton]

On 4/13/2013 9:34 AM, �Jones wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:15:46 -0700, in talk.politics.guns George
> Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> America didn't suffer a military defeat in Vietnam, but absolutely it
>> suffered a political defeat. Strategically, it was neither victory nor
>> defeat. It is a myth, one of many about America in Vietnam, that South Vietnam
>> collapsed because of an aid "cutoff". (The other major myth is that
>> American soldiers were "spit on" when they returned. It never happened
>> - utter hogwash.) There was no "cutoff" of aid:
>> http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/126150.html
>
> I was in Saigon about 37 years ago; I can't listen to "White
> Christmas" without thinking about it.
>
> It looked like a defeat from where I was standing.

It was a policy defeat, but not a military defeat. Militarily, the US
won its war in Vietnam, but it couldn't make it stick. The US would
have had to remain in Vietnam indefinitely. Who knows - if we *had*
remained there up until the late 1980s, when the Soviet bloc began to
crumble, perhaps the south would have become a viable state.

>
> I never witnessed any spitting incidents; however, there is one well
> documented incident of a Vietnam Veteran spitting on a celebrity
> Vietnam war protestor.

Never heard of that. I hope it was Jane Fonda. Her motive in opposing
the war was all wrong. She openly sided with the communists. That was
wrong. She was a stupid twat, and probably still is.

[@notto.can SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/13/2013 10:01 AM, Mike Watt wrote:
>
>
> "¡Jones" wrote in message

> news:v72jm853n9gntohqe...@4ax.com...
>
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:15:46 -0700, in talk.politics.guns George
> Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>

--

=====================================================================
SPAMMED INTO NON-RELEVANT GROUPS / COUNTRY
=====================================================================

[@notto.can SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/13/2013 10:35 AM, Denny wrote:

> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/13/2013 9:34 AM, ¡Jones wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:15:46 -0700, in talk.politics.guns George
>>> Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>

[George Plimpton]

On 4/13/2013 10:29 AM, Denny wrote:
> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&f
> ield-keywords=spitting%20image&sprefix=spitting+image%2Cstripbooks%2C382&rh
> =i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3Aspitting%20image
>
> I never read this book, but reviews said the author never found one
> credible instance of Vietnam vets being spit on.

That's right. I heard the author interviewed on NPR, and he described
his efforts at (futilely) trying to document the charge that people spit
on returning Vietnam vets.

I don't doubt that some encountered some extremely rude, vulgar and
juvenile treatment from idiotic anti-war leftists, and in a figurative
way, they were spat upon, but not literally.

The left ought to apologize for that, but they never will.

[Kicking Ass and Taking Names]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:01:24 -0400, "Mike Watt" <The sto...@bass.gov>
wrote:

I was there 43 years ago and we were winning when I left.

Don't know what happened after me to fuck it up.

[�Jones]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 10:14:03 -0700, in talk.politics.guns George
Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>It was a policy defeat, but not a military defeat. Militarily, the US
>won its war in Vietnam, but it couldn't make it stick. The US would
>have had to remain in Vietnam indefinitely. Who knows - if we *had*
>remained there up until the late 1980s, when the Soviet bloc began to
>crumble, perhaps the south would have become a viable state.

>Never heard of that. I hope it was Jane Fonda. Her motive in opposing
>the war was all wrong. She openly sided with the communists. That was
>wrong. She was a stupid twat, and probably still is.

'Bout five (or so; don't feel like looking it up) years ago, a Vietnam
Veteran spat upon Jane Fonda at some event. Jane gratiously forgave
him and looked very rational. I wish the locals had prosecuted the
Vet.

Jones

[�Jones]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 16:31:26 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Kicking Ass
and Taking Names <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I was there 43 years ago and we were winning when I left.
>
>Don't know what happened after me to fuck it up.

You gotta be winning at the end; the halftime score doesn't count.

Jones

[Dave Smith]

On 13/04/2013 1:14 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

> On 4/13/2013 9:34 AM, ĄJones wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:15:46 -0700, in talk.politics.guns George
>> Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>
>>> America didn't suffer a military defeat in Vietnam, but absolutely it
>>> suffered a political defeat. Strategically, it was neither victory nor
>>> defeat. It is a myth, one of many about America in Vietnam, that
>>> South Vietnam
>>> collapsed because of an aid "cutoff". (The other major myth is that
>>> American soldiers were "spit on" when they returned. It never happened
>>> - utter hogwash.) There was no "cutoff" of aid:
>>> http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/126150.html
>>

>> I was in Saigon about 37 years ago; I can't listen to "Whitepc

>> Christmas" without thinking about it.
>>
>> It looked like a defeat from where I was standing.
>
> It was a policy defeat, but not a military defeat. Militarily, the US
> won its war in Vietnam, but it couldn't make it stick.

?????
The US pulled out. The North Vietnamese ended up taking over the south
You can play all the words games you want, but it looks like Vietnam won.

The whole thing could have avoided had the Vietnamese not been returned
to French colonial rule after WWII. It could also have been avoided if
the US and South Vietnam had honoured the agreement to hold a referendum
on re-unification. It is more than a little ironic that the US would
claim to be be fighting for freedom and democracy in view of the fact
that they reneged on democratic process that had been promised in the
peace agreement, especially since they did so because they knew they
were going to lose. Then the ended up with a military presence to
support the Vietnamese government, and then staged a coup to remove the
corrupt leadership they had been supporting.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The book by Robert Greene entitled: "Homecoming: When the Soldiers
Returned from Vietnam" describes, through letters from Vietnam
Veterans, the wide spread prevasive personal insults directed at
returning Vietnam Veterans. This book only describes the overt insults
and intimidation directed at returning Vietnam Veterans. It does not
described the wide spread covert forms of discrimination directed at
returning Vietnam veterans such as employment discrimination,
educational discrimination, and otherwise. The URL of the Amazon
website that describes this book is:

http://www.amazon.com/Homecoming-When-Soldiers-Returned-Vietnam/dp/0399133860

In fact, the USA broke off all aide to South Vietnam, despite it's
treaty commitments to defend the same in case of attack and to provide
such aide.
At the same time North Vietnam had the full support of China, the
former Soviet Union, and other nations.
Because it did not have the military means to defend itself, South
Vietnam fell to a conventional invasion by North Vietnam and it's
powerful allies.
Tragic wide spread human suffering resulted from this betrayal of
South Vietnam by the USA.

[@not.cda SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/13/2013 6:38 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 13/04/2013 1:14 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

[@not.cda SpamƁusteᴙ]

[Dave Smith]

On 13/04/2013 9:40 PM, Marcus Aurelius wrote:
ttp://www.amazon.com/Homecoming-When-Soldiers-Returned-Vietnam/dp/0399133860
>
> In fact, the USA broke off all aide to South Vietnam, despite it's
> treaty commitments to defend the same in case of attack and to provide
> such aide.
> At the same time North Vietnam had the full support of China, the
> former Soviet Union, and other nations.
> Because it did not have the military means to defend itself, South
> Vietnam fell to a conventional invasion by North Vietnam and it's
> powerful allies.
> Tragic wide spread human suffering resulted from this betrayal of
> South Vietnam by the USA.
>

If the US had stayed out of things they country might have freed itself
from its French colonial masters without having to turn to the communists.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:46:03 -0700, Spam?uste? <Spam?Custe @NOT.cda>
wrote:

Which groups are irrelevant?

[70.66....@sjrb.ca]

On 13 Apr 2013, =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbcaBdXN0ZeG0mQ==?= <Spam�Custe @NOT.cda>
posted some news:HSnat.7$Mu...@newsfe27.iad:

> From: =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbcaBdXN0ZeG0mQ==?= <Spam�Custe @NOT.cda>
> Reply-To: SpamƁusteᴙr...@NOT.cda
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0)
> Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups:
> alt.idiots,rec.crafts.metalworking,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics,alt.
> california,misc.survivalism,us.politiics Subject: Re: Remember Vietnam
> !! References: <pn7bm898pksj1a7p9...@4ax.com>
> <5165a85b$0$10396$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>
> <pbfim89nq3tdv1m0p...@4ax.com>
> <36f4$51697688$414e828e$79...@EVERESTKC.NET>
> <v72jm853n9gntohqe...@4ax.com>
> <5daa5$51699127$414e828e$19...@EVERESTKC.NET>
> <LMnat.27369$%H.2...@fed08.iad> In-Reply-To:
> <LMnat.27369$%H.2...@fed08.iad> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Lines: 10
> Message-ID: <HSnat.7$Mu...@newsfe27.iad>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.66.92.223
> X-Complaints-To: interne...@sjrb.ca
> X-Trace: 1365903911 70.66.92.223 (Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:45:11 UTC)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:45:11 UTC
> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:45:20 -0700
> X-Received-Bytes: 1666

--

[70.66....@sjrb.ca]

On 13 Apr 2013, =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbcaBdXN0ZeG0mQ==?= <Spam�Custe @NOT.cda>

posted some news:mTnat.8$Mu...@newsfe27.iad:

> From: =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbcaBdXN0ZeG0mQ==?= <Spam�Custe @NOT.cda>
> Reply-To: SpamƁusteᴙr...@NOT.cda
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0)
> Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups:
> alt.idiot,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics,alt.california,us.politics,mi
> sc.survivalism Subject: Re: Remember Vietnam !!
> References: <pn7bm898pksj1a7p9...@4ax.com>
> <5165a85b$0$10396$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>
> <pbfim89nq3tdv1m0p...@4ax.com>
> <36f4$51697688$414e828e$79...@EVERESTKC.NET>

> <7f175e4a-9e8f-46ec...@pl9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
> In-Reply-To:
> <7f175e4a-9e8f-46ec...@pl9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 8
> Message-ID: <mTnat.8$Mu...@newsfe27.iad>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.66.92.223
> X-Complaints-To: interne...@sjrb.ca
> X-Trace: 1365903954 70.66.92.223 (Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:45:54 UTC)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:45:54 UTC
> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:46:03 -0700
> X-Received-Bytes: 1520

--

[SaPeIsMa]

"Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:LMnat.27369$%H.2...@fed08.iad...

> On 13/04/2013 1:14 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

>> On 4/13/2013 9:34 AM, �Jones wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:15:46 -0700, in talk.politics.guns George
>>> Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>> America didn't suffer a military defeat in Vietnam, but absolutely it
>>>> suffered a political defeat. Strategically, it was neither victory nor
>>>> defeat. It is a myth, one of many about America in Vietnam, that
>>>> South Vietnam
>>>> collapsed because of an aid "cutoff". (The other major myth is that
>>>> American soldiers were "spit on" when they returned. It never happened
>>>> - utter hogwash.) There was no "cutoff" of aid:
>>>> http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/126150.html
>>>
>>> I was in Saigon about 37 years ago; I can't listen to "Whitepc
>>> Christmas" without thinking about it.
>>>
>>> It looked like a defeat from where I was standing.
>>
>> It was a policy defeat, but not a military defeat. Militarily, the US
>> won its war in Vietnam, but it couldn't make it stick.
>
>
> ?????
> The US pulled out. The North Vietnamese ended up taking over the south You
> can play all the words games you want, but it looks like Vietnam won.
>

That is NOT a word game, dummy
Stating that it was a "policy defeat" does not deny that in effect, the US
politicians snatched defeat out of the mouth of victory.
The North Vietnamese were militarily defeated after the Tet offensive - as
was admitted in various memoirs of North Vietnamese military leaders

> The whole thing could have avoided had the Vietnamese not been returned to
> French colonial rule after WWII. It could also have been avoided if the
> US and South Vietnam had honoured the agreement to hold a referendum on
> re-unification. It is more than a little ironic that the US would claim
> to be be fighting for freedom and democracy in view of the fact that they
> reneged on democratic process that had been promised in the peace
> agreement, especially since they did so because they knew they were going
> to lose. Then the ended up with a military presence to support the
> Vietnamese government, and then staged a coup to remove the corrupt
> leadership they had been supporting.
>

LOL
At least that is the theory if you presume that the Communists were playing
by the rules
Those who studied a bit of history know better.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message

news:c6oat.1273$ol1...@fed04.iad...

DOH !
Ho Chi Minh, the force behind the anti-French movement was a dedicated
Communist.
What makes you stupid enough to imagine that he had no intention of
installing a socialist heaven into a re-unified Vietnam (other and ignorant
wishful thinking naturally) ?

Why don';t you study up on what happened to those countries that Churchill
and Roosevelt had ceded to the control of the Communists in Europe. The ones
of which most became the Warsaw Pact later one. And consequently suffered
more than 50 years as socialist heavens..

That way you could stop proving yourself an ignorant fool by making comments
as the one above

[Siri Cruise]

In article <kkeb96$ca7$2...@dont-email.me>, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What makes you stupid enough to imagine that he had no intention of
> installing a socialist heaven into a re-unified Vietnam (other and ignorant
> wishful thinking naturally) ?

He came to the USA in 1920 and 1946 for help in Vietnam independence. Only after
that did he turn to the USSR.
--
Mommy says the people who most need to see a shrink are the ones most
viennaly denying they need one.
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <kkeaic$7tp$2...@dont-email.me>, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The North Vietnamese were militarily defeated after the Tet offensive - as
> was admitted in various memoirs of North Vietnamese military leaders

No, they weren't. The Viet Cong were defeated. Then North Vietnam Army
infliltrated south.

[Dave Smith]

On 14/04/2013 9:23 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

>>>> It looked like a defeat from where I was standing.
>>>
>>> It was a policy defeat, but not a military defeat. Militarily, the US
>>> won its war in Vietnam, but it couldn't make it stick.
>>
>>
>> ?????
>> The US pulled out. The North Vietnamese ended up taking over the south
>> You can play all the words games you want, but it looks like Vietnam won.
>>
>
> That is NOT a word game, dummy
> Stating that it was a "policy defeat" does not deny that in effect, the
> US politicians snatched defeat out of the mouth of victory.

There was no American mouth of victory from which to snap it.

> The North Vietnamese were militarily defeated after the Tet offensive -
> as was admitted in various memoirs of North Vietnamese military leaders

Yet... the won. The US pulled out. The Vietnamese ended up with their
country re-united.

>
>
>> The whole thing could have avoided had the Vietnamese not been
>> returned to French colonial rule after WWII. It could also have been
>> avoided if the US and South Vietnam had honoured the agreement to hold
>> a referendum on re-unification. It is more than a little ironic that
>> the US would claim to be be fighting for freedom and democracy in view
>> of the fact that they reneged on democratic process that had been
>> promised in the peace agreement, especially since they did so because
>> they knew they were going to lose. Then the ended up with a military
>> presence to support the Vietnamese government, and then staged a coup
>> to remove the corrupt leadership they had been supporting.
>>
>
> LOL
> At least that is the theory if you presume that the Communists were
> playing by the rules

Are those the rules that Ho Chi Minh played by when he had US support to
fight the Japanese. If you end a civil war with an agreement to have a
referendum on reunification and then, when it becomes apparent the other
side is going to win the referendum, so you cancel them.... that's not
exactly fighting by the rules either.

> Those who studied a bit of history know better.

Are you going to try to deny that there was supposed to be a referendum
and the South, with American support, cancelled it? Do you have a good
explanation as to how the US could be there to support the South
Vietnamese government and then support a coup to remove the leaders?

[Dave Smith]

On 14/04/2013 10:18 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <kkeb96$ca7$2...@dont-email.me>, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What makes you stupid enough to imagine that he had no intention of
>> installing a socialist heaven into a re-unified Vietnam (other and ignorant
>> wishful thinking naturally) ?
>
> He came to the USA in 1920 and 1946 for help in Vietnam independence. Only after
> that did he turn to the USSR.
>

Oops.... I guess the guy who suggests that other people should learn
about history didn't know that.

[David Johnston]

Well it has nothing to do with survivalism, or gun politics. Not much
to do with California or Canada either.

[�Jones]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:40:51 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns Marcus
Aurelius <alexan...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The book by Robert Greene entitled: "Homecoming: When the Soldiers
>Returned from Vietnam" describes, through letters from Vietnam
>Veterans, the wide spread prevasive personal insults directed at
>returning Vietnam Veterans. This book only describes the overt insults
>and intimidation directed at returning Vietnam Veterans. It does not
>described the wide spread covert forms of discrimination directed at
>returning Vietnam veterans such as employment discrimination,
>educational discrimination, and otherwise. The URL of the Amazon
>website that describes this book is:
>
>http://www.amazon.com/Homecoming-When-Soldiers-Returned-Vietnam/dp/0399133860

I do not doubt that isolated instances of insults and abuse existed;
one needs only to post to Usenet to be gratuitously inundated with
abusive language today; the '60s and early '70s certainly weren't a
kinder, gentler time, as I recall.

This, however, was not *most* returning Vietnam veterans' experience.
Vietnam Veterans were generally accepted back into society. The
simple fact that our economy was in the post-war recession with 12%
inflation made it difficult for anyone to find a job. I simply cannot
understand what this "educational discrimination" of which you speak
might be.

I will accept that today's veterans do tend to be greater whiners than
the WWII veterans were. Essentially, we reflect the society from
which we came. WWII veterans had just come through the great
depression and, therefore, were made of sterner stuff socially than
were the Vietnam veterans or the veterans of the Gulf Wars. Our
generation has pretty well always had everything it wanted. IMHO,
it's more healthful to have what one needs and a *little bit* of what
you want.

Jones

[�Jones]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 22:01:46 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Dave Smith
<adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>If the US had stayed out of things they country might have freed itself
>from its French colonial masters without having to turn to the communists.

Nous gagnions quand je suis parti.

Jones

[@not.cda SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/13/2013 7:01 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 13/04/2013 9:40 PM, Marcus Aurelius wrote:
> ttp://www.amazon.com/Homecoming-When-Soldiers-Returned-Vietnam/dp/0399133860

[@not.cda SpamƁusteᴙ]

[@not.cda SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/14/2013 8:02 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 14/04/2013 10:18 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> In article <kkeb96$ca7$2...@dont-email.me>, "SaPeIsMa"
>> <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

--

[@not.cda SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/14/2013 7:20 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 14/04/2013 9:23 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>

[@not.cda SpamƁusteᴙ]

[@not.cda SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/14/2013 7:18 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <kkeb96$ca7$2...@dont-email.me>, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>

[@not.cda SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/14/2013 7:20 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:

> In article <kkeaic$7tp$2...@dont-email.me>, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:52:55 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:

Ah, so the POST was irrelevant, not the groups.

Gotcha. ;)

[George Plimpton]

On 4/13/2013 12:17 PM, Denny wrote:
> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/13/2013 10:29 AM, Denny wrote:
>>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2013 4:13 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:58:52 -0500, "Make Clint s day: Change his
>>>>> Depends." <al...@asdk.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/10/2013 12:28 PM, aezael wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is where America's mighty war machine got it's
>>>>>> ass kicked by a bunch of cave and tunnel dwellers ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> umm.. sounds familiar doesn't it ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Evidently you lads went to Liberal run schools..didnt you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or were you out smoking dope during history class?
>>>>>
>>>>> America didnt get its ass kicked in Nam.

>>>>
>>>> America didn't suffer a military defeat in Vietnam, but absolutely it
>>>> suffered a political defeat. Strategically, it was neither victory
>>>> nor defeat.
>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> The South Vietnamese did however..the moment the Democrats cut off
>>>>> aid

>>>>
>>>> It is a myth, one of many about America in Vietnam, that South Vietnam
>>>> collapsed because of an aid "cutoff". (The other major myth is that
>>>> American soldiers were "spit on" when they returned. It never
>>>> happened - utter hogwash.) There was no "cutoff" of aid:
>>>> http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/126150.html
>>>

>>> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripboo
>>> ks&f
>>> ield-keywords=spitting%20image&sprefix=spitting+image%2Cstripbooks%2C38
>>> 2&rh =i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3Aspitting%20image
>>>
>>> I never read this book, but reviews said the author never found one
>>> credible instance of Vietnam vets being spit on.
>>
>> That's right. I heard the author interviewed on NPR, and he described
>> his efforts at (futilely) trying to document the charge that people spit
>> on returning Vietnam vets.
>>
>> I don't doubt that some encountered some extremely rude, vulgar and
>> juvenile treatment from idiotic anti-war leftists, and in a figurative
>> way, they were spat upon, but not literally.
>>
>> The left ought to apologize for that, but they never will.
>
> I wouldn't.

Of course you wouldn't. You have bad character, and your extremist
left-wing sentiment is directly based on that bad character.


> In thpse days, EVERYONE seeing a returned vet on the street wouldn't say
> anything to the guys. Whether you were pro or anti, you didn't make eye
> contact, crossed the street, or ducked around corners.

I was around then, being just young enough that I didn't get drafted,
and I don't remember any of that, nor did I ever hear of that. Most
people seemed simply to be going about their business. If you saw
someone in uniform, you didn't really react to it, either negatively or
positively. That's very different from today, when a lot of people
congratulate military personnel in uniform and thank them for their
"service".


> Everyone knew that a goodly percentage of those guys were dangerous.

That's just bullshit. While there was a lot of problems for a high
percentage of those who saw combat, the percentage who actually were in
combat was quite small. The so called "tooth to tail" ratio for Vietnam
was much lower than it had been for earlier wars.

You couldn't tell if a returning vet had been in combat or not, or even
if he had been overseas at all. Of course, the US had much higher
numbers of troops posted elsewhere overseas in that era, such as West
Germany, Japan and Korea.

[George Plimpton]

That's not what happened. There was not a victory to be had. The south
regime was never viable. Our goal - to prevent the north from taking
over the south *and* to have a viable regime in the south - was never a
realizable goal in a reasonable amount of time. If we had stayed there
and kept fighting up until the early 1990s, something for which the
American public had no appetite, then the fall of the Soviet Union would
have meant the north would not have been able to continue.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/13/2013 6:38 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

> On 13/04/2013 1:14 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

>> On 4/13/2013 9:34 AM, �Jones wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:15:46 -0700, in talk.politics.guns George
>>> Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>> America didn't suffer a military defeat in Vietnam, but absolutely it
>>>> suffered a political defeat. Strategically, it was neither victory nor
>>>> defeat. It is a myth, one of many about America in Vietnam, that
>>>> South Vietnam
>>>> collapsed because of an aid "cutoff". (The other major myth is that
>>>> American soldiers were "spit on" when they returned. It never happened
>>>> - utter hogwash.) There was no "cutoff" of aid:
>>>> http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/126150.html
>>>
>>> I was in Saigon about 37 years ago; I can't listen to "Whitepc
>>> Christmas" without thinking about it.
>>>
>>> It looked like a defeat from where I was standing.
>>
>> It was a policy defeat, but not a military defeat. Militarily, the US
>> won its war in Vietnam, but it couldn't make it stick.
>
>
> ?????
> The US pulled out. The North Vietnamese ended up taking over the south
> You can play all the words games you want, but it looks like Vietnam won.

It's not a word game. Vietnam was much like Afghanistan. Militarily,
we defeated the Taliban and chased them from power. As soon as we exit
from Afghanistan, they will return to power. We will not have been
militarily defeated, but politically we will lose.

In Vietnam, we didn't even militarily defeat the north.

> The whole thing could have avoided had the Vietnamese not been returned
> to French colonial rule after WWII.

In that case, Ho Chi Minh would have taken over the entire country in
the 1940s. From the perspective of today, you can ask what difference
it would have made, and the answer is basically none. From the
perspective of 1945, it didn't appear that way.

Vietnam was not returned to the French in 1945 - the British took over,
and then they promptly left and the French went back in.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/13/2013 6:40 PM, Marcus Aurelius wrote:

> The book by Robert Greene entitled: "Homecoming: When the Soldiers
> Returned from Vietnam" describes, through letters from Vietnam
> Veterans, the wide spread prevasive personal insults directed at
> returning Vietnam Veterans. This book only describes the overt insults
> and intimidation directed at returning Vietnam Veterans. It does not
> described the wide spread covert forms of discrimination directed at
> returning Vietnam veterans such as employment discrimination,
> educational discrimination, and otherwise. The URL of the Amazon
> website that describes this book is:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Homecoming-When-Soldiers-Returned-Vietnam/dp/0399133860
>

> In fact, the USA broke off all aide to South Vietnam,

That's a lie. Gerald Ford sought to increase the aid, and that increase
was refused by Congress. The current levels of aid at the time were not
cut.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/14/2013 7:18 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:

> In article <kkeb96$ca7$2...@dont-email.me>, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What makes you stupid enough to imagine that he had no intention of
>> installing a socialist heaven into a re-unified Vietnam (other and ignorant
>> wishful thinking naturally) ?
>
> He came to the USA in 1920 and 1946 for help in Vietnam independence. Only after
> that did he turn to the USSR.

He was a Communist from the beginning.

[@not.cda SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/14/2013 9:52 AM, David Johnston wrote:

[Dave Smith]

On 14/04/2013 3:18 PM, Denny wrote:

> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:LMnat.27369$%H.2...@fed08.iad...
>>> On 13/04/2013 1:14 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

> The colonial era jut came to an end.
> For some reason, a group of small European countries stole most of the
> world from their rightful owners. Eventually the locals got together and
> kicked out the thieves. For example, the Vietnamese kicked out the Chinese,
> then the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, then the
> Americans. End of story.
>

Except that the Americans did not lose. It was a policy defeat.... ????

[Glenn Hall]

On Apr 13, 11:15 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/13/2013 4:13 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:58:52 -0500, "Make Clint s day: Change his
> > Depends." <al...@asdk.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 4/10/2013 12:28 PM, aezael wrote:
>
> >>   That is where America's mighty war machine got it's
> >> ass kicked by a bunch of cave and tunnel dwellers ?
>
> >> umm.. sounds familiar doesn't it ?
>
> > Evidently you lads went to Liberal run schools..didnt you?
>
> > Or were you out smoking dope during history class?
>
> > America didnt get its ass kicked in Nam.
>

> America didn't suffer a military defeat in Vietnam, but absolutely it
> suffered a political defeat.  Strategically, it was neither victory nor
> defeat.
>
>
>

> > The South Vietnamese did however..the moment the Democrats cut off aid
>

> It is a myth, one of many about America in Vietnam, that South Vietnam
> collapsed because of an aid "cutoff".  (The other major myth is that
> American soldiers were "spit on" when they returned.  It never happened
> - utter hogwash.)  There was no "cutoff" of aid:http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/126150.html

We all blame the leftists for why Nixon pulled out.

And we blame Obama for the great Bush recession too.

What ever happened to personal accountability in the USA?

Why won't the leftists accept blame for all right wing fuck ups?

Will anti-tax hike activist Grover Norquist, who sits on the Board of
Directors of the NRA, support Wayne LaPierre's idea of a $7 billion
tax hike for his great "National School Shield Program"? To put
armed guards in our schools to protect our children from gun owners!

Wait and see.

[Andy]

Glenn Hall laid this down on his screen :

> We all blame the leftists for why Nixon pulled out.
>
> And we blame Obama for the great Bush recession too.
>
> What ever happened to personal accountability in the USA?
>
> Why won't the leftists accept blame for all right wing fuck ups?
>
> Will anti-tax hike activist Grover Norquist, who sits on the Board of
> Directors of the NRA, support Wayne LaPierre's idea of a $7 billion
> tax hike for his great "National School Shield Program"? To put
> armed guards in our schools to protect our children from gun owners!
>
> Wait and see.

Maybe comedian Chris Rock was right.

"Give guns to everybody, but make the cost of a bullet $5000"rec..

That will pay the tab.

[Glenn Hall]

On Apr 14, 4:08 pm, Dave Smith <adavid.sm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On 14/04/2013 3:18 PM, Denny wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Dave Smith" <adavid.sm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message

Technically, Vietnam and Korea were not wars.

Both were "police actions" according to the USA.

And though the USA does great trade with Vietnam these days, the
Korean war never ended. Just the USA's involvement in the "Police
Action"

Thomas Sowell blames Obama.

[Glenn Hall]

The 1948 annexation, by India, of Hyderabad State, code named
Operation Polo, was referred to as a police action by the government.

The Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Kargil War were undeclared
wars and hence are sometimes described as police actions.

The Soviet war in Afghanistan was an undeclared war and hence also
could be described as a police action, especially since the initial
troop deployments into Afghanistan were at the request of the Afghan
government.

In other events, the Congress had not made a formal declaration of
war, yet the President, as the commander-in-chief, has claimed
authority to send in the armed forces when he deemed necessary, with
or without the approval of Congress. The legal legitimacy of each of
these actions was based upon declarations such as the Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution and Iraq Resolution by Congress and various United Nations
resolutions. Nonetheless, Congressional approval has been asserted by
means of funding appropriations or other authorizations.

[@not.cda SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/14/2013 1:31 PM, Andy aka Kixi

[@not.cda SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/14/2013 1:31 PM, Andy aka KIXI
wrote:


> Path: not-for-mail
> From: Andy <andes...@yahoo.ca>
> Newsgroups: misc.survivalism,rec.crafts.metalworking,talk.politics.guns,alt.rush-limbaugh,can.politics
> Subject: Re: Remember Vietnam !!
> Followup-To: rec.crafts.metalworking
> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 16:31:12 -0400
> Organization: ..
> Lines: 23
> Message-ID: <kkf3mo$3em$1...@news.albasani.net>
> References: <pn7bm898pksj1a7p9...@4ax.com> <5165a85b$0$10396$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net> <pbfim89nq3tdv1m0p...@4ax.com> <36f4$51697688$414e828e$79...@EVERESTKC.NET> <2cdf6dfa-60de-4b28...@q9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
> Reply-To: nob...@nospam.net
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Trace: news.albasani.net upWRoLSIXOGlrgAqEVu0V6xmi+oAjPg0agQKAWPFNXMPI9XfC+ndJ01R/gKLAF14qm4O7ns//YoCPWU3H+gqwuEIiYUmYnJwYMiUxNOEPDUYogOqQ4oUMWxdmwprcyff
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:31:20 +0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="1/j6/ABJHy6X2kTWT04D9rVaef2oV5jGabqXsFs8fvW1TAb5gjMdFG3AynJhA8+DaN4NXycQKAIef3ptITf4bAqP7XIVdDYp9n15RGSZYOK/zQZ9qcuNAPwYO2ycVSuL"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@albasani.net"
> X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.03.00-gb
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:U/8HgrI+r29PPspNrallVljOIIE=
> X-ICQ: 543516788
> X-Received-Bytes: 2301
> Xref: Hurricane misc.survivalism:1104327 rec.crafts.metalworking:964409 talk.politics.guns:1727894 alt.rush-limbaugh:1193507 can.politics:1462283

[Siri Cruise]

In article <dbbd8$516affd8$414e828e$49...@EVERESTKC.NET>,

What about rest of Vietnam? Are you saying that if US had actually helped them,
they dedicate themselves to pissing you off?
--
Daddy says Mormons are all programmers because their god is Cobol. Should
I ask Mormons to reschedule Bullwinkle?
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.

[Sancho Panza]

On 4/14/2013 11:02 AM, Dave Smith wrote:

> On 14/04/2013 10:18 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> In article <kkeb96$ca7$2...@dont-email.me>, "SaPeIsMa"
>> <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What makes you stupid enough to imagine that he had no intention of
>>> installing a socialist heaven into a re-unified Vietnam (other and
>>> ignorant
>>> wishful thinking naturally) ?
>>
>> He came to the USA in 1920 and 1946 for help in Vietnam independence.
>> Only after
>> that did he turn to the USSR.
>>
>
>

> Oops.... I guess the guy who suggests that other people should learn
> about history didn't know that.

That is only if you say that 1945 follows 1946:

"He led the Việt Minh independence movement from 1941 onward,
establishing the communist-ruled Democratic Republic of Vietnam in
1945." --wikipedia.com

[Siri Cruise]

In article <516b2f0b$0$20220$607e...@cv.net>,

Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/14/2013 11:02 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> > On 14/04/2013 10:18 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> >> In article <kkeb96$ca7$2...@dont-email.me>, "SaPeIsMa"
> >> <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> What makes you stupid enough to imagine that he had no intention of
> >>> installing a socialist heaven into a re-unified Vietnam (other and
> >>> ignorant
> >>> wishful thinking naturally) ?
> >>
> >> He came to the USA in 1920 and 1946 for help in Vietnam independence.
> >> Only after
> >> that did he turn to the USSR.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Oops.... I guess the guy who suggests that other people should learn
> > about history didn't know that.
>
> That is only if you say that 1945 follows 1946:
>

> "He led the Vi?t Minh independence movement from 1941 onward,

> establishing the communist-ruled Democratic Republic of Vietnam in
> 1945." --wikipedia.com

Vichy France let Japan run French Indochina. The Fourth Republic reasserted
possession in late 1945 and overthrew DRV. Ho Chi Minh appealed to Truman who
turned him down, as Wilson had. Then he turned to Stalin to support Vietnam
independence. After a decade France gave up, and the US took over. The US
installed a puppet dictatorship and invented RVN, keeping it alive against the
wishes of its people for another couple of decades.

In May 1975 the country was reunited and independent as most of its people
wanted.

[Marcus Aurelius]

This is a reply to George Plimpton's response to my post. The
following is the URL of a web site entitled: "Vietnam: Looking Back-
At the Facts" by K.G. Sears, Ph.D:
http://www.lindasog.com/military/vietnam.htm

In this article Dr. Sears delineates the fact that all aide WAS cut
off to South Vietnam by the U.S.A. prior to the conventional invasion
of South Vietnam by North Vietnam and her allies supported by Red
China, the former Soviet Union, and other nations.
Thus the Bolshevik original historical deceitful revisions in
Plimpton's original and subsequent posts, repeated on innumerable
occasions by Bolsheviks in the USA and elsewhere, both regard to the
massive overt and covert denigration of and discrimination against
returning Vietnam Veterans and the betrayal of South Vietnam by the
USA are revealed as what they are, BOLSHEVICK PROPAGANDA SIMILAR TO
THAT PROMULGATED IN THE USA BY THE SOVIET KGB DURING THE WAR IN
VIETNAM!

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:18:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn Hall
<gare...@ymail.com> wrote:

>
>What ever happened to personal accountability in the USA?

Leftists made it a mantra to blame it on everybody but Leftists

You are either stupid or a troll. Or both.

Gunner

[@not.cda SpamƁusteᴙ]

[Sancho Panza]

The question is when Ho became a Communist. The answer was given that
only after 1946 did he turn to the Soviet Union. That is so completely
erroneous as to inspire suspicions about the motives involved. Instead
of irrelevant assertions about post-1945 events, here is some history of
Ho's long Communist experience:

"From 1919–23, while living in France, Nguyễn began to approach the idea
of communism, through his friend and Socialist Party of France comrade
Marcel Cachin. Nguyễn claimed to have arrived in Paris from London in
1917, but the French police only had documents of his arrival in June
1919.[3] Following World War I, under the name Nguyễn Ái Quốc (“Nguyễn
the Patriot”), he petitioned for recognition of the civil rights of the
Vietnamese people in French Indochina to the Western powers at the
Versailles peace talks, but was ignored.[6] Citing the language and the
spirit of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Quốc petitioned U.S.
President Woodrow Wilson to help remove the French from Vietnam and
replace them with a new, nationalist government. Although he was unable
to obtain consideration at Versailles, the failure further radicalized
Nguyễn, while also making him a national hero of the anti-colonial
movement at home in Vietnam.[7]

In 1920, during the Congress of Tours, in France, Quốc became a founding
member of the Parti Communiste Français (FCP) and spent much of his time
in Moscow afterward, becoming the Comintern’s Asia hand and the
principal theorist on colonial warfare. During the Indochina War, the
PCF would be involved with anti-war propaganda, sabotage and support for
the revolutionary effort. In May 1922, Nguyễn wrote an article for a
French magazine criticizing the use of English words by French
sportswriters.[8] The article implores Prime Minister Raymond Poincaré
to outlaw such Franglais as le manager, le round and le knock-out. While
living in Paris, he reportedly had a relationship with a dressmaker
named Marie Brière.[8]

In 1923, Nguyễn (Ho) left Paris for Moscow, where he was employed by the
Comintern, studied at the Communist University of the Toilers of the
East,[9][10] and participated in the Fifth Comintern Congress in June
1924, before arriving in Canton (present-day Guangzhou), China, in
November 1924. In June 1925, Hoang Van Chi claimed Nguyễn (Ho) betrayed
Phan Boi Chau, the head of a rival revolutionary faction, to French
police in Shanghai for 100,000 piastres.[11] Nguyễn (Ho) later claimed
he did it because he expected Chau's trial to stir up anti-French
resentment, and because he needed the money to establish a communist
organization.[11] In Ho Chi Minh: A Life, William Duiker repudiated this
hypothesis. Other sources claim that Nguyen Thuong Hien was responsible
for Chau's capture. Chau never denounced Nguyễn.

In 1925–26 he organized "Youth Education Classes" and occasionally gave
lectures at the Whampoa Military Academy on the revolutionary movement
in Indochina. According to Duiker, he lived with and married a Chinese
woman, Tang Tuyet Minh (Zeng Xueming), on 18 October 1926.[12] When his
comrades objected to the match, he told them, “I will get married
despite your disapproval because I need a woman to teach me the language
and keep house.”[12] She was 21 and he was 36.[12] They married in the
same place where Zhou Enlai had married earlier and then lived together
at the residence of a Comintern agent, Mikhail Borodin.[12]

Chiang Kai-shek's anti-communist 1927 coup triggered a new round of
exile for Nguyễn. He left Canton again in April 1927 and returned to
Moscow, spending some of the summer of 1927 recuperating from
tuberculosis in the Crimea, before returning to Paris once more in
November. He then returned to Asia by way of Brussels, Berlin,
Switzerland, and Italy, from where he sailed to Bangkok, Thailand, where
he arrived in July 1928. “Although we have been separated for almost a
year, our feelings for each other do not have to be said in order to be
felt”, he reassured Minh in an intercepted letter.[12]

He remained in Thailand, staying in the Thai village of Nachok,[13]
until late 1929 when he moved on to India, and Shanghai. In June 1931,
he was arrested in Hong Kong. To reduce French pressure for extradition,
it was (falsely) announced in 1932 that Nguyễn Ái Quốc had died.[14] The
British quietly released him in January 1933. He made his way back to
Milan, Italy, where he served in a restaurant. The restaurant now serves
traditional Lombard-cuisine and harbors a portrait of Ho Chi Minh on the
wall of its main dining hall.[15][16] He moved to the Soviet Union,
where he spent several more years recovering from tuberculosis.

In 1938, he returned to China and served as an adviser with Chinese
Communist armed forces, which later forced China's government to the
island of Taiwan.[3] Around 1940, Quốc began regularly using the name
"Hồ Chí Minh",[3] a Vietnamese name combining a common Vietnamese
surname (Hồ, 胡) with a given name meaning "He Who enlightens" (from
Sino-Vietnamese 志 明; Chí meaning 'will' (or spirit), and Minh meaning
"light").[17]"

[SaPeIsMa]

"Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message

news:wXyat.4946$ep4....@fed01.iad...

> On 14/04/2013 9:23 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
>>>>> It looked like a defeat from where I was standing.
>>>>
>>>> It was a policy defeat, but not a military defeat. Militarily, the US
>>>> won its war in Vietnam, but it couldn't make it stick.
>>>
>>>
>>> ?????
>>> The US pulled out. The North Vietnamese ended up taking over the south
>>> You can play all the words games you want, but it looks like Vietnam
>>> won.
>>>
>>
>> That is NOT a word game, dummy
>> Stating that it was a "policy defeat" does not deny that in effect, the
>> US politicians snatched defeat out of the mouth of victory.
>
>

> There was no American mouth of victory from which to snap it.
>

You're being in denial of the facts in no way changes those facts.

>
>> The North Vietnamese were militarily defeated after the Tet offensive -
>> as was admitted in various memoirs of North Vietnamese military leaders
>

> Yet... the won. The US pulled out. The Vietnamese ended up with their
> country re-united.
>


HELLO !
ANYBODY HOME !!!
Can you even comprehend a simple notion that although the military have
beat the enemy, the politicians caved in and gave away the cookie jar ??

>
>
>>
>>
>>> The whole thing could have avoided had the Vietnamese not been
>>> returned to French colonial rule after WWII. It could also have been
>>> avoided if the US and South Vietnam had honoured the agreement to hold
>>> a referendum on re-unification. It is more than a little ironic that
>>> the US would claim to be be fighting for freedom and democracy in view
>>> of the fact that they reneged on democratic process that had been
>>> promised in the peace agreement, especially since they did so because
>>> they knew they were going to lose. Then the ended up with a military
>>> presence to support the Vietnamese government, and then staged a coup
>>> to remove the corrupt leadership they had been supporting.
>>>
>>
>> LOL
>> At least that is the theory if you presume that the Communists were
>> playing by the rules
>

> Are those the rules that Ho Chi Minh played by when he had US support to
> fight the Japanese. If you end a civil war with an agreement to have a
> referendum on reunification and then, when it becomes apparent the other
> side is going to win the referendum, so you cancel them.... that's not
> exactly fighting by the rules either.
>

<sigh>
Simple rule for the idiots
"different game, different rules.."
And winning the referendum by stuffing the ballot boxes was never considered
kosher by anyone except pinkies.

>
>> Those who studied a bit of history know better.
>
>

> Are you going to try to deny that there was supposed to be a referendum
> and the South, with American support, cancelled it? Do you have a good
> explanation as to how the US could be there to support the South
> Vietnamese government and then support a coup to remove the leaders?
>

Moving of the goalposts noted.
I'll leave you to pushing to goalposts around..

[SaPeIsMa]

"Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message

news:nyzat.16332$_h3....@fed10.iad...

> On 14/04/2013 10:18 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> In article <kkeb96$ca7$2...@dont-email.me>, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What makes you stupid enough to imagine that he had no intention of
>>> installing a socialist heaven into a re-unified Vietnam (other and
>>> ignorant
>>> wishful thinking naturally) ?
>>
>> He came to the USA in 1920 and 1946 for help in Vietnam independence.
>> Only after
>> that did he turn to the USSR.
>>
>
>
> Oops.... I guess the guy who suggests that other people should learn
> about history didn't know that.

So he did turn to the communists
Thank you for proving my point

Only an idiot would be stupid enough to ignore that fact and claim victory
Oh wait, it's you adavid..

[SaPeIsMa]

"Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:516b2f0b$0$20220$607e...@cv.net...

> On 4/14/2013 11:02 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 14/04/2013 10:18 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> In article <kkeb96$ca7$2...@dont-email.me>, "SaPeIsMa"
>>> <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What makes you stupid enough to imagine that he had no intention
>>>> of
>>>> installing a socialist heaven into a re-unified Vietnam (other and
>>>> ignorant
>>>> wishful thinking naturally) ?
>>>
>>> He came to the USA in 1920 and 1946 for help in Vietnam independence.
>>> Only after
>>> that did he turn to the USSR.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Oops.... I guess the guy who suggests that other people should learn
>> about history didn't know that.
>
> That is only if you say that 1945 follows 1946:
>

> "He led the Việt Minh independence movement from 1941 onward,

> establishing the communist-ruled Democratic Republic of Vietnam in
> 1945." --wikipedia.com
>

Pinkies are apt to do such things.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <516b5f11$0$25612$607e...@cv.net>,

Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:

> > In article <516b2f0b$0$20220$607e...@cv.net>,
> > Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:

> >> That is only if you say that 1945 follows 1946:

> The question is when Ho became a Communist. The answer was given that

You change the question everytime you get an answer you don't like.

[Walter Forward]

On 4/14/2013 5:00 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:18:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn Hall
> <gare...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> What ever happened to personal accountability in the USA?
>

> Right-wing proto Nazis like me made it a mantra to blame it on everybody but

...the right-wing proto-Nazis who were to blame.

Correct.

[Barry Bruyea]

"Kicking out" so called indigenous people covers the history of the
world with every ethnic group you can think of participating.

[Dave Smith]

On 14/04/2013 10:43 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

>>
>>> The North Vietnamese were militarily defeated after the Tet offensive -
>>> as was admitted in various memoirs of North Vietnamese military leaders
>>
>> Yet... the won. The US pulled out. The Vietnamese ended up with their
>> country re-united.
>>
>
>
> HELLO !
> ANYBODY HOME !!!
> Can you even comprehend a simple notion that although the military have
> beat the enemy, the politicians caved in and gave away the cookie jar ??
>
>

The Vietnamese wanted re-unite their country and for the foreigners to
go away and let them run it themselves. There were 60,000 Americans
killed and a couple hundred thousand more wounded. They spent billions
of dollars and look at the result.....a reunited and independent Vietnam.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/14/2013 7:43 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
> "Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:wXyat.4946$ep4....@fed01.iad...
>> On 14/04/2013 9:23 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>>>>>> It looked like a defeat from where I was standing.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a policy defeat, but not a military defeat. Militarily, the US
>>>>> won its war in Vietnam, but it couldn't make it stick.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ?????
>>>> The US pulled out. The North Vietnamese ended up taking over the south
>>>> You can play all the words games you want, but it looks like Vietnam
>>>> won.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is NOT a word game, dummy
>>> Stating that it was a "policy defeat" does not deny that in effect, the
>>> US politicians snatched defeat out of the mouth of victory.
>>
>>
>> There was no American mouth of victory from which to snap it.
>>
>
> You're being in denial of the facts in no way changes those facts.
>
>
>>
>>> The North Vietnamese were militarily defeated after the Tet offensive -
>>> as was admitted in various memoirs of North Vietnamese military leaders
>>
>> Yet... the won. The US pulled out. The Vietnamese ended up with their
>> country re-united.
>>
>
>
> HELLO !
> ANYBODY HOME !!!
> Can you even comprehend a simple notion that although the military have
> beat the enemy, the politicians caved in and gave away the cookie jar ??

Didn't happen. The war was unwinnable, and finally we wised up and
left. It wasn't the sort of contest that could be won on the
battlefield. It was a political war, and we lost it.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/14/2013 3:13 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <dbbd8$516affd8$414e828e$49...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> On 4/14/2013 7:18 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> In article <kkeb96$ca7$2...@dont-email.me>, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What makes you stupid enough to imagine that he had no intention of
>>>> installing a socialist heaven into a re-unified Vietnam (other and
>>>> ignorant
>>>> wishful thinking naturally) ?
>>>
>>> He came to the USA in 1920 and 1946 for help in Vietnam independence. Only
>>> after
>>> that did he turn to the USSR.
>>
>> He was a Communist from the beginning.
>
> What about rest of Vietnam?

What about it? Why did you ignore the "rest of Vietnam" when you
blabbered about Ho approaching the US for assistance?

[Custe @not.cda SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/15/2013 6:06 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 14/04/2013 10:43 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> The North Vietnamese were militarily defeated after the Tet offensive -
>>>> as was admitted in various memoirs of North Vietnamese military leaders
>>>
>>> Yet... the won. The US pulled out. The Vietnamese ended up with their
>>> country re-united.
>>>
>>
>>
>> HELLO !
>> ANYBODY HOME !!!
>> Can you even comprehend a simple notion that although the military
>> have
>> beat the enemy, the politicians caved in and gave away the cookie jar ??

[Custe @not.cda SpamƁusteᴙ]

[Custe @not.cda SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/14/2013 8:58 PM, Walter Forward wrote:
> On 4/14/2013 5:00 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:18:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn Hall
>> <gare...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What ever happened to personal accountability in the USA?
>>

[70.66....@sjrb.ca]

On 13 Apr 2013, =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbcaBdXN0ZeG0mQ==?= <Spam�uste @NotTo.can>
posted some news:Kchat.472126$uU.2...@newsfe11.iad:

> On 4/13/2013 10:35 AM, Denny wrote:

>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2013 9:34 AM, ¡Jones wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:15:46 -0700, in talk.politics.guns George
>>>> Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>

> From: =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbcaBdXN0ZeG0mQ==?= <Spam�uste @NotTo.can>
> Reply-To: SpamƁusteᴙr...@NotTo.can
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0)
> Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups:
> alt.idiots,alt.spam,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics,alt.california,misc
> .survivalism,rec.crafts.metalworking Subject: Re: Remember Vietnam !!
> References: <pn7bm898pksj1a7p9...@4ax.com>
> <5165a85b$0$10396$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>
> <pbfim89nq3tdv1m0p...@4ax.com>
> <36f4$51697688$414e828e$79...@EVERESTKC.NET>

> <v72jm853n9gntohqe...@4ax.com>
> <5daa5$51699127$414e828e$19...@EVERESTKC.NET>
> <20130413133511.515$D...@newsreader.com> In-Reply-To:
> <20130413133511.515$D...@newsreader.com> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Lines: 13
> Message-ID: <Kchat.472126$uU.2...@newsfe11.iad>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.66.92.223
> X-Complaints-To: interne...@sjrb.ca
> X-Trace: 1365876650 70.66.92.223 (Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:10:50 UTC)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:10:50 UTC
> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:10:59 -0700
> X-Received-Bytes: 1804

--

[70.66....@sjrb.ca]

On 13 Apr 2013, =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbcaBdXN0ZeG0mQ==?= <Spam�uste @NotTo.can>

posted some news:ybhat.472124$uU.1...@newsfe11.iad:

> On 4/13/2013 10:01 AM, Mike Watt wrote:
>>
>>
>> "¡Jones" wrote in message
>> news:v72jm853n9gntohqe...@4ax.com...

>>
>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:15:46 -0700, in talk.politics.guns George
>> Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>
> From: =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbcaBdXN0ZeG0mQ==?= <Spam�uste @NotTo.can>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0)
> Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups:
> alt.spam,alt.idiots,rec.crafts.metalworking,talk.politics.guns,alt.poli
> tics,alt.california,misc.survivalism Subject: Re: Remember Vietnam !!
> References: <pn7bm898pksj1a7p9...@4ax.com>
> <5165a85b$0$10396$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>
> <pbfim89nq3tdv1m0p...@4ax.com>
> <36f4$51697688$414e828e$79...@EVERESTKC.NET>
> <v72jm853n9gntohqe...@4ax.com>

> <51698f5e$0$19530$607e...@cv.net> In-Reply-To:
> <51698f5e$0$19530$607e...@cv.net> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Lines: 14
> Message-ID: <ybhat.472124$uU.1...@newsfe11.iad>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.66.92.223
> X-Complaints-To: interne...@sjrb.ca
> X-Trace: 1365876574 70.66.92.223 (Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:09:34 UTC)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:09:34 UTC
> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:09:42 -0700
> X-Received-Bytes: 1719

--

[70.66....@sjrb.ca]

On 15 Apr 2013, =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbcaBdXN0ZeG0mQ==?= <Spam�Custe @NOT.cda>
posted some news:KUWat.252$i85...@newsfe12.iad:

> From: =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbcaBdXN0ZeG0mQ==?= <Spam�Custe @NOT.cda>
> Reply-To: SpamƁusteᴙr...@NOT.cda
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0)
> Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups:
> alt.spam,rec.crafts.metalworking,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics,alt.ca
> lifornia,misc.survivalism,us.politics Subject: Re: Remember Vietnam !!
> References: <pn7bm898pksj1a7p9...@4ax.com>
> <5165a85b$0$10396$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>
> <pbfim89nq3tdv1m0p...@4ax.com>
> <36f4$51697688$414e828e$79...@EVERESTKC.NET>
> <v72jm853n9gntohqe...@4ax.com>

> <5daa5$51699127$414e828e$19...@EVERESTKC.NET>
> <LMnat.27369$%H.2...@fed08.iad> <kkeaic$7tp$2...@dont-email.me>
> <wXyat.4946$ep4....@fed01.iad> <kkfpev$rjr$2...@dont-email.me>
> <jXSat.41201$iK6....@fed11.iad> In-Reply-To:
> <jXSat.41201$iK6....@fed11.iad> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 24
> Message-ID: <KUWat.252$i85...@newsfe12.iad>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.66.92.223
> X-Complaints-To: interne...@sjrb.ca
> X-Trace: 1366047402 70.66.92.223 (Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:36:42 UTC)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:36:42 UTC
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:36:42 -0700
> X-Received-Bytes: 2238

--

[70.66....@sjrb.ca]

On 15 Apr 2013, =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbcaBdXN0ZeG0mQ==?= <Spam�Custe @NOT.cda>

posted some news:aWWat.253$i85...@newsfe12.iad:

> From: =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbcaBdXN0ZeG0mQ==?= <Spam�Custe @NOT.cda>
> Reply-To: SpamƁusteᴙr...@NOT.cda
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0)
> Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups:
> alt.spam,rec.crafts.metalworking,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics,alt.ca
> lifornia,misc.survivalism,us.politics Subject: Re: Remember Vietnam !!
> References: <pn7bm898pksj1a7p9...@4ax.com>
> <5165a85b$0$10396$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>
> <pbfim89nq3tdv1m0p...@4ax.com>
> <36f4$51697688$414e828e$79...@EVERESTKC.NET>
> <v72jm853n9gntohqe...@4ax.com>
> <5daa5$51699127$414e828e$19...@EVERESTKC.NET>
> <LMnat.27369$%H.2...@fed08.iad> <kkeaic$7tp$2...@dont-email.me>

> <20130414151809.021$6...@newsreader.com>
> <P0Eat.20734$ol1....@fed04.iad>
> <s8gnm81kom1uvqv80...@4ax.com> In-Reply-To:
> <s8gnm81kom1uvqv80...@4ax.com> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Lines: 60
> Message-ID: <aWWat.253$i85...@newsfe12.iad>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.66.92.223
> X-Complaints-To: interne...@sjrb.ca
> X-Trace: 1366047494 70.66.92.223 (Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:38:14 UTC)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:38:14 UTC
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:38:15 -0700
> X-Received-Bytes: 4440

--

[SaPeIsMa]

"Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message

news:jXSat.41201$iK6....@fed11.iad...

A classic example of ignoring the facts to re-write history..

[Dave Smith]

On 16/04/2013 8:30 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

>>
>>
>> The Vietnamese wanted re-unite their country and for the foreigners to
>> go away and let them run it themselves. There were 60,000 Americans
>> killed and a couple hundred thousand more wounded. They spent
>> billions of dollars and look at the result.....a reunited and
>> independent Vietnam.
>>
>
>
>
> A classic example of ignoring the facts to re-write history..
>

Yeah right.... the US lost that one. More than 10 years of fighting,
60,000 Americans killed, billions of dollars..... and the North and
South ended up re-united.

[Sancho Panza]

On 4/14/2013 11:03 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <516b5f11$0$25612$607e...@cv.net>,
> Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> In article <516b2f0b$0$20220$607e...@cv.net>,
>>> Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> That is only if you say that 1945 follows 1946:
>
>> The question is when Ho became a Communist. The answer was given that
>
> You change the question everytime you get an answer you don't like.
>

People who can't remember what they wrote six hours later, not to
mention not even checking the record, have serious cognitive problems.
Resorting to ad hominems is a strong indicator for that deficit.

[Sancho Panza]

We just withness that attempted right here with the post implying that
Ho Chi Minh became a Communist after dealing with the U.S. in 1946. When
in reality, by that year he had already been a staunch old-line
Lenin-Marxist for more than two decades.

[George Plimpton]

Not in the least. The US suffered an abject policy defeat.

[Dave Smith]

On 16/04/2013 12:12 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>
>>> The Vietnamese wanted re-unite their country and for the foreigners to
>>> go away and let them run it themselves. There were 60,000 Americans
>>> killed and a couple hundred thousand more wounded. They spent
>>> billions of dollars and look at the result.....a reunited and
>>> independent Vietnam.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A classic example of ignoring the facts to re-write history..
>>
> We just withness that attempted right here with the post implying that
> Ho Chi Minh became a Communist after dealing with the U.S. in 1946. When
> in reality, by that year he had already been a staunch old-line
> Lenin-Marxist for more than two decades.
>
>

I think the only think we saw was your reading comprehension failure. It
was suggested that Ho Chi Minh turned to the Soviets for support after
the US refused his request for assistance. He had worked with the
American OSS during WW II. No one said that he became a communist only
after the US refused. He was already a communist and had been one for
years. The US had few qualms about engaging communists in their fight
against common enemies. A lot of the resistance movements on Europe had
a lot of communists in them. Many of the resistance groups were
basically communist. They had an alliance with the Soviet Union.

The US never trusted the communists and as soon as the war was over they
did their best to sever their relationships. Hell, they helped a lot of
ex-Nazis get out of Europe in order to use them in their fight against
the new enemy.... communists.


The US could also have had a much better relationship with post
revolutionary Cuba but rejected Castro as a communist. Apparently it is
better to be a corrupt and oppressive right wing dictator than to be a
moderate communist.

[Barry Bruyea]

Longer than that. He attended the Comintern back in the early 20's.
>

[Barry Bruyea]

The U.S. (naive as Americans can be) had no clue that Castro was a
committed communist long before he took control in Cuba and as far a
Castro being a 'moderate', not bloody likely.
>
>

[Dave Smith]

On 16/04/2013 4:13 PM, Barry Bruyea wrote:
basically communist. They had an alliance with the Soviet Union.
>>
>> The US never trusted the communists and as soon as the war was over they
>> did their best to sever their relationships. Hell, they helped a lot of
>> ex-Nazis get out of Europe in order to use them in their fight against
>> the new enemy.... communists.
>>
>>
>> The US could also have had a much better relationship with post
>> revolutionary Cuba but rejected Castro as a communist. Apparently it is
>> better to be a corrupt and oppressive right wing dictator than to be a
>> moderate communist.
>
> The U.S. (naive as Americans can be) had no clue that Castro was a
> committed communist long before he took control in Cuba and as far a
> Castro being a 'moderate', not bloody likely.
>

The "moderate" communist could apply to any of a number of left leaning
politicians. They US sure crapped all over Chile under Allende. They
pulled all sorts of stunts to try to prevent him from winning the
election and from taking power when he did. They backed a coup to oust
Allende and the supported Pinochet, whose regime was responsible for
imprisoning and torturing thousands and thousands of opponents.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <e9gbt.47130$ol1....@fed04.iad>,

Dave Smith <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> The US could also have had a much better relationship with post
> revolutionary Cuba but rejected Castro as a communist. Apparently it is
> better to be a corrupt and oppressive right wing dictator than to be a
> moderate communist.

Until Castro Cuba was a nation in name only. Castro made Cuba truly independent
and sovereign, which pissed off the US. After 50 years, the US is still pissed
off.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <b3crm8l6lv2t7lm3o...@4ax.com>,

Barry Bruyea <damnthet...@duck.com> wrote:

> The U.S. (naive as Americans can be) had no clue that Castro was a
> committed communist long before he took control in Cuba and as far a
> Castro being a 'moderate', not bloody likely.

Castro turned to the USSR after the US tried to kill him.

As far as moderation....you only have to look across the water to Hispaniola
where Duvaliers and Trujillo were in power at that time without US criticism.
Moderation was not important to the US. Letting the Mafia and other US companies
suck all possible money from Cuba were important. Castro interfered with
business so he became a target.

[Dave Smith]

On 16/04/2013 5:01 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <e9gbt.47130$ol1....@fed04.iad>,
> Dave Smith <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> The US could also have had a much better relationship with post
>> revolutionary Cuba but rejected Castro as a communist. Apparently it is
>> better to be a corrupt and oppressive right wing dictator than to be a
>> moderate communist.
>
> Until Castro Cuba was a nation in name only. Castro made Cuba truly independent
> and sovereign, which pissed off the US. After 50 years, the US is still pissed
> off.
>

It was corrupt as hell under Batista. It was a playground for the mob
and cheap land for Americans who wanted to grow sugar... and pay low
wages. The US is still whining about the nationization of American
owned businesses in Cuba. It should be noted that, it was only American
owned businesses that were nationalized, and that is was done in stages.
Each new state takeover was in response to an American attempt to depose
the regime or to kill Castro.

The US had had its eyes on Cuba for about a hundred years before Castro
came along. It was seen as part of the Manifest Destiny that would see
the US control all of North America. Daniel Sickles, later of Civil War
fame, had been sent to Europe feel out the French and English on their
attitude toward the US taking over Cuba. They tried to buy it, but
Spain refused. The US backed the revolutionaries in the 1890s.

The US had invested a lot of energy and a lot of money in its attempts
to take over Cuba. They must have been be really pissed when Castro took
it over, something they had never been able to get away with.

[Sancho Panza]

On 4/16/2013 5:09 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <b3crm8l6lv2t7lm3o...@4ax.com>,
> Barry Bruyea <damnthet...@duck.com> wrote:
>
>> The U.S. (naive as Americans can be) had no clue that Castro was a
>> committed communist long before he took control in Cuba and as far a
>> Castro being a 'moderate', not bloody likely.
>
> Castro turned to the USSR after the US tried to kill him.

Looks like the old familiar bullshit.

[Dave Smith]

On 16/04/2013 9:05 PM, Denny wrote:

>> The "moderate" communist could apply to any of a number of left leaning
>> politicians. They US sure crapped all over Chile under Allende. They
>> pulled all sorts of stunts to try to prevent him from winning the
>> election and from taking power when he did. They backed a coup to oust
>> Allende and the supported Pinochet, whose regime was responsible for
>> imprisoning and torturing thousands and thousands of opponents.
>
>

> The worst thing about communism is it led the United States into supporting
> the wrong side in several foreign conflicts. We supported numerous
> dictators. In one glorious era, just in Central America, we supported four1
> El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Guatamala.

Is that a problem with communism or with the US? It sure hasn't helped
withe the image of the US among people who suffered under oppressive
right wing regimes which were supported by the US only because they were
anti communist.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <516dee58$0$20219$607e...@cv.net>,

Then you should come up with some new bullshit.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <0Imbt.149704$iK6....@fed11.iad>,

Dave Smith <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Is that a problem with communism or with the US? It sure hasn't helped
> withe the image of the US among people who suffered under oppressive
> right wing regimes which were supported by the US only because they were
> anti communist.

I am the one you warned me of.

The US 1776 revolution inspired the French revolution. When they relieved royals
of their excess cranial capacity the royals in rest of Europe did their best to
stomp out the French revolution. A century later the US betrayed its revolution
to become the imperialists. (Even though we have been incompetent imperialists,
we still score the intention points.)

So by the 1920s the US was in the position of the old European royals and tried
to stomp the Russian revolution including invading Russia. Then in the 1930s
there was a parnoia of Communist revolution in the US to the point of failed
coup d'etats against FDR and the Constitutions. It wasn't about democracy or
freedom but about those on top willing to do anything to stay there.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message

news:tacbt.18009$5i4....@fed06.iad...

Funny how you cut the context out of the post to avoid admitting that you
were full of shit..
Your but buddy, the other david also does that.

So let me repeat it for you

>>
>> HELLO !
>> ANYBODY HOME !!!
>> Can you even comprehend a simple notion that although the military

>> had beat the enemy, the politicians caved in and gave away the cookie jar
>> ??
>>

[SaPeIsMa]

"Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:516d787c$0$20230$607e...@cv.net...

Indeed...
But that's just one of those "inconvenient truths" that pinkies like smith
try to brush under the carpet, hoping that no one will notice.