Remember when Democrats started the Vietnam war - and tried to blame Republicans?

[Corey Jepps]

Just like Bill Clinton started the Iraq war to avoid being
impeached - and liberal democrats immediately blamed Republicans.

All those liberal cowards packed their draft aged punks off to
Canada.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Wait a second-- was that BEFORE Democrats became Republicans and
Republicans became Democrats?

Because it's all good if it came after the Great Thaumaturgic
Transformation.

[Col. Edmund Burke]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <Klausscha...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:3hjnlalluu0slrepl...@4ax.com...

Sheeeeeet! I had to look that one up, little feller.

[︰ones]

Well, you're half right; the beginning of the Vietnam War traces to
Kennedy. Bush (43) invaded Iraq, though.

If I had one "do over" in my life, I'd have packed it off to Canada as
opposed to going to Vietnam.

Jones

[Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D.]

ĄJones wrote:

> On Wed, 20 May 2015 01:20:17 +0200 (CEST), in talk.politics.guns
> "Corey Jepps" <cje...@sjrb.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Just like Bill Clinton started the Iraq war to avoid being
>>impeached - and liberal democrats immediately blamed Republicans.
>>
>>All those liberal cowards packed their draft aged punks off to
>>Canada.
>
>
> Well, you're half right; the beginning of the Vietnam War traces to
> Kennedy.

Truman - took French military back after WW2 and gave U.S. military equipment
Eisenhower - provided U.S. troops and gave equipment to French
Kennedy - sent U.S. military
LBJ - huge escalation
Nixon - still tried for victory
Ford - no mas, end of war

Truman to LBJ expected little resistance and easy victory...until LBJ
realized that the Vietnamese people could fight back.

Amazing how little former soldiers who were there know.
;-)

[RD Sandman]

"Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:NM-dnYUof7OVc8HI...@supernews.com:

> ĄJones wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 May 2015 01:20:17 +0200 (CEST), in talk.politics.guns
>> "Corey Jepps" <cje...@sjrb.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Just like Bill Clinton started the Iraq war to avoid being
>>>impeached - and liberal democrats immediately blamed Republicans.
>>>
>>>All those liberal cowards packed their draft aged punks off to
>>>Canada.
>>
>>
>> Well, you're half right; the beginning of the Vietnam War traces to
>> Kennedy.
>
> Truman - took French military back after WW2 and gave U.S. military
> equipment Eisenhower - provided U.S. troops and gave equipment to
> French Kennedy - sent U.S. military
> LBJ - huge escalation
> Nixon - still tried for victory

While reducing troop numbers there rather drastically.

1959 - 760 - Eisenhower
1960 - 900 - Eisenhower
1961 - 3,205 - Kennedy
1962 - 11,300 - Kennedy
1963 - 16,300 - Kennedy - Nov - Johnson
1964 - 23,300 - Johnson
1965 - 184,300 - Johnson
1966 - 385,300 - Johnson
1967 - 485,600 - Johnson
1968 - 536,100 - Johnson
1969 - 472,200 - Nixon
1970 - 334,600 - Nixon
1971 - 156,800 - Nixon
1972 - 24,200 - Nixon
1973 - 50 - Nixon

1975 - April 30, 1975 - Fall of Saigon - Ford

> Ford - no mas, end of war
>
> Truman to LBJ expected little resistance and easy victory..

It was also a very different war than our troops were prepared for.

> .until LBJ
> realized that the Vietnamese people could fight back.

It was known before then. LBJ's problem was in thinking he could
micromanage the war from Washington. He would brag that our planes could
not bomb as shithouse without his direction. Even McNamara, in
hindsight, agrees that was a piss-poor way to run a war.

> Amazing how little former soldiers who were there know.
> ;-)
>

--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

In these days and times, there is really only one race on this planet.
It is called "human". It just comes in many colors and sizes.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D.]

RD Sandman wrote:

> "Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:NM-dnYUof7OVc8HI...@supernews.com:
>
>
>>ĄJones wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 May 2015 01:20:17 +0200 (CEST), in talk.politics.guns
>>>"Corey Jepps" <cje...@sjrb.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Just like Bill Clinton started the Iraq war to avoid being
>>>>impeached - and liberal democrats immediately blamed Republicans.
>>>>
>>>>All those liberal cowards packed their draft aged punks off to
>>>>Canada.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, you're half right; the beginning of the Vietnam War traces to
>>>Kennedy.
>>
>>Truman - took French military back after WW2 and gave U.S. military
>>equipment Eisenhower - provided U.S. troops and gave equipment to
>>French Kennedy - sent U.S. military
>>LBJ - huge escalation
>>Nixon - still tried for victory
>
>
> While reducing troop numbers there rather drastically.

While he (Nixon) drastically escalated the secret (from Americans) bombing.

The secret bombing continued long past the '73 Paris Peace Accords,
and the U.S. military was still active in the war until the end in '75.

>
> It was also a very different war than our troops were prepared for.

yep, Americans were arrogant as hell, expecting an easy victory, and
that had a lot to do with them getting their asses kicked.

The U.S. military was in Vietnam for 25 years (1950-1975), with
mostly free rein (till '73) and vast resources, yet could not
accomplish its mission.

>>.until LBJ
>>realized that the Vietnamese people could fight back.
>
>
> It was known before then.

Not by LBJ, who expected every escalation to be enough.

> LBJ's problem was in thinking he could
> micromanage the war from Washington. He would brag that our planes could
> not bomb as shithouse without his direction. Even McNamara, in
> hindsight, agrees that was a piss-poor way to run a war.

well gee, losing is *always* a piss-poor way to run a war.

but yeah...if they could have had just one more chance maybe
they would have won. Your excuses ring hollow.

give some credit to the victors.
;-)

[Jim Vanagas]

On 20 May 2015, "Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> posted
some news:NM-dnYUof7OVc8HI...@supernews.com:

Still smoking that dope, eh Doc?

If the American soldiers, Navy, Air Force and Marines had been allowed
to fight the enemy, instead of avoiding sacred targets comprised of
missile batteries, radars and AA guns, Vietnam would still be a smoking
monument to the defeat of communism at this hour.

Saigon would be a rotting hole in the ground, and we wouldn't have refuge
communes of Asian communists planted in the USA.

It's pretty easy to see who the Democrats were rooting for. It certainly
wasn't democracy and it definitely wasn't America.

[Corey Jepps]

In article <jaudnZiPqrFwisDI...@supernews.com>

"Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> RD Sandman wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > news:NM-dnYUof7OVc8HI...@supernews.com:
> >
> >
> >>ĄJones wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 20 May 2015 01:20:17 +0200 (CEST), in talk.politics.guns
> >>>"Corey Jepps" <cje...@sjrb.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Just like Bill Clinton started the Iraq war to avoid being
> >>>>impeached - and liberal democrats immediately blamed Republicans.
> >>>>
> >>>>All those liberal cowards packed their draft aged punks off to
> >>>>Canada.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Well, you're half right; the beginning of the Vietnam War traces to
> >>>Kennedy.
> >>
> >>Truman - took French military back after WW2 and gave U.S. military
> >>equipment Eisenhower - provided U.S. troops and gave equipment to
> >>French Kennedy - sent U.S. military
> >>LBJ - huge escalation
> >>Nixon - still tried for victory
> >
> >
> > While reducing troop numbers there rather drastically.
>
> While he (Nixon) drastically escalated the secret (from Americans) bombing.
>
> The secret bombing continued long past the '73 Paris Peace Accords,
> and the U.S. military was still active in the war until the end in '75.

Admission that there was a president who actually tried to win
the war noted.

> >
> > It was also a very different war than our troops were prepared for.
>
> yep, Americans were arrogant as hell, expecting an easy victory, and
> that had a lot to do with them getting their asses kicked.

Democrats were (stupid) arrogant as hell.

Fixed that for you.

They were cowards too. Sent their kids to Canada and Europe to
avoid the draft.

> The U.S. military was in Vietnam for 25 years (1950-1975), with
> mostly free rein (till '73) and vast resources, yet could not
> accomplish its mission.

Primarily because of Democrats who were not committed to fight,
and thought they could win by acting like playground bullies.

> >>.until LBJ
> >>realized that the Vietnamese people could fight back.
> >
> >
> > It was known before then.
>
> Not by LBJ, who expected every escalation to be enough.

He killed JFK didn't he?

Wasn't that enough?

>
> > LBJ's problem was in thinking he could
> > micromanage the war from Washington. He would brag that our planes could
> > not bomb as shithouse without his direction. Even McNamara, in
> > hindsight, agrees that was a piss-poor way to run a war.
>
> well gee, losing is *always* a piss-poor way to run a war.

Except for Truman, Democrats always lose wars.

> but yeah...if they could have had just one more chance maybe
> they would have won. Your excuses ring hollow.

Mock all you want. The facts stand for themselves. Democrat
pro-communists lost that war.

> give some credit to the victors.
> ;-)

Indeed. American Democrats deserve a full historical accounting
for their incompetent role in Vietnam.

[Jeff Strickland]

"Corey Jepps" <cje...@sjrb.ca> wrote in message
news:1264f2244427fe09...@dizum.com...

Technically, the Viet Nam war started during the Eisenhower Administration,
so pinning it on the Republicans is not a huge miss of the Fact Train.

[benj]

Technically the "golden triangle" drug supply has ALWAYS been deemed
worth fighting over by Democrats AND Republicans! Catch the fact train.

--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

[︰ones]

On Wed, 20 May 2015 13:27:48 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "Dr. Nancy
Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Truman - took French military back after WW2 and gave U.S. military equipment

I am aware of the history of the Vietnam War, probably much more so
than you are, sir. Truman could (and obviously should) have objected
to the return of the Frogs; however, he didn't *take* them back.
There was certainly complicity. Ike didn't get real involved;
however, he should have courted Ho to a greater extent; Ho was more of
a Vietnamese nationalist than a communist.

Jones

[︰ones]

On Wed, 20 May 2015 16:41:32 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:

>> Nixon - still tried for victory
>
>While reducing troop numbers there rather drastically.

He had scant choice in the matter.

Don't get me wrong, I liked old Tricky. Methinks that he was one of
our most capable presidents... certainly the most capable
*Republican*!

What I really liked about him was that politics weren't ever boring
with Tricky around.

Jones

[benj]

You were no hippie! To hippies Nixon was Satan incarnate!

[︰ones]

On Thu, 21 May 2015 11:58:54 -0400, in alt.war.vietnam benj
<nob...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You were no hippie! To hippies Nixon was Satan incarnate!

I was a Satanist hippie... like Charlie Masson, you know.

Jones

[RD Sandman]

"Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:jaudnZiPqrFwisDI...@supernews.com:

> RD Sandman wrote:
>
>> "Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:NM-dnYUof7OVc8HI...@supernews.com:
>>
>>
>>>ĄJones wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 20 May 2015 01:20:17 +0200 (CEST), in talk.politics.guns
>>>>"Corey Jepps" <cje...@sjrb.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Just like Bill Clinton started the Iraq war to avoid being
>>>>>impeached - and liberal democrats immediately blamed Republicans.
>>>>>
>>>>>All those liberal cowards packed their draft aged punks off to
>>>>>Canada.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, you're half right; the beginning of the Vietnam War traces to
>>>>Kennedy.
>>>
>>>Truman - took French military back after WW2 and gave U.S. military
>>>equipment Eisenhower - provided U.S. troops and gave equipment to
>>>French Kennedy - sent U.S. military
>>>LBJ - huge escalation
>>>Nixon - still tried for victory
>>
>>
>> While reducing troop numbers there rather drastically.
>
> While he (Nixon) drastically escalated the secret (from Americans)
> bombing.

Most of the bombing in Nam was conducted by LBJ and McNamara.

> The secret bombing continued long past the '73 Paris Peace Accords,
> and the U.S. military was still active in the war until the end in
> '75.

I noticed you snipped the buildup dates and numbers. Is that typical of
you?

>> It was also a very different war than our troops were prepared for.
>
> yep, Americans were arrogant as hell, expecting an easy victory, and
> that had a lot to do with them getting their asses kicked.
>
> The U.S. military was in Vietnam for 25 years (1950-1975), with
> mostly free rein (till '73) and vast resources, yet could not
> accomplish its mission.

It's initial mission was to support the French and act as advisors.

>>>.until LBJ
>>>realized that the Vietnamese people could fight back.
>>
>>
>> It was known before then.
>
> Not by LBJ, who expected every escalation to be enough.

LBJ was a moron who liked to place his hat over the speedometer in his
car and drive fast.

>> LBJ's problem was in thinking he could
>> micromanage the war from Washington. He would brag that our planes

>> could not bomb a shithouse without his direction. Even McNamara, in

>> hindsight, agrees that was a piss-poor way to run a war.
>
> well gee, losing is *always* a piss-poor way to run a war.
>
> but yeah...if they could have had just one more chance maybe
> they would have won. Your excuses ring hollow.

I didn't give any. I stated facts.

> give some credit to the victors.
> ;-)

In war, there are no victors.

>>>Amazing how little former soldiers who were there know.
>>>;-)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[RD Sandman]

Jim Vanagas <jvan...@invalid.com> wrote in
news:XnsA4A0B06D...@127.0.0.1:

Lot of truth in that statement.

> Saigon would be a rotting hole in the ground, and we wouldn't have
> refuge communes of Asian communists planted in the USA.
>
> It's pretty easy to see who the Democrats were rooting for. It
> certainly wasn't democracy and it definitely wasn't America.

Some things haven't changed.

[RD Sandman]

"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:mjjo0a$qd1$1...@dont-email.me:

Amazing phenomenon, eh?

[︰ones]

On Wed, 20 May 2015 16:26:32 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "Dr. Nancy
Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>While he (Nixon) drastically escalated the secret (from Americans) bombing.
>
>The secret bombing continued long past the '73 Paris Peace Accords,
>and the U.S. military was still active in the war until the end in '75.

Vinnie, the secret to understanding history, or at least approaching
it with a modicum of intelligence, is to warm up to the idea that,
regardless of how far back you want to go, one only finds cause and
effect *after* one has chosen an arbitrary point of observation. Why
pick 1950 as your zero point? Why not run it back another century or
so and blame either Taylor or Fillmore? ... and, then, why stop there?

I chose 1962 because that represented the first large scale (it's all
relative, Vinnie) deployment of US troops. < SHRUG > Yes, Vietnam
existed prior to that time and actually had a history. Most Americans
would think that the war began on August 2, 1964 when those dirty
Commie bastards attacked a US ship steaming innocently in
international water... well, it was *almost* in international water,
anyway... and relatively innocent (it's all relative, Vinnie.)

Jones

[Ch...@anywhere.com]

Back in the '50s Joe McCarthy and the J Birch Society convinced many the
communists in SE Asia posed a terrible and immediate threat to our country.
This hysteria prevented any negotiations with Ho, or Castro. We had a
similar terrorizing of the country when GW Bush was in power
RM Nixon was McCarthy's right hand bimbo so it was truly ironic that Nixon
was left to deal with the end game in Viet Nam.

[︰ones]

On Thu, 21 May 2015 11:35:34 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:

>Most of the bombing in Nam was conducted by LBJ and McNamara.

This is a fact; however, the "secret bombings" to which he (or,
perhaps it changed gender?) refers didn't happen in 'Nam. Of course,
you Korean weenies aren't allowed to call it "'Nam", but I'll let it
slide because it didn't happen there.

They probably weren't exactly much of a secret to the people on the
ground, either.

"Looky there, Pho; here come the US bombers."

"Shhhhh! It's a secret!"

Jones

[RD Sandman]

ĄJones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in news:a05sla5r8jqb6arfasa7ktkg8j6e6nh0d2@
4ax.com:

> On Thu, 21 May 2015 11:35:34 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Most of the bombing in Nam was conducted by LBJ and McNamara.
>
> This is a fact; however, the "secret bombings" to which he (or,
> perhaps it changed gender?) refers didn't happen in 'Nam. Of course,
> you Korean weenies aren't allowed to call it "'Nam", but I'll let it
> slide because it didn't happen there.

I was not in Korea. I was a "Tweener". I served two hitches between the
end of Korea and the Missiles of October.

> They probably weren't exactly much of a secret to the people on the
> ground, either.
>
> "Looky there, Pho; here come the US bombers."
>
> "Shhhhh! It's a secret!"
>
> Jones
>
>

[︰ones]

On Thu, 21 May 2015 11:37:26 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:

>> If the American soldiers, Navy, Air Force and Marines had been allowed
>> to fight the enemy, instead of avoiding sacred targets comprised of
>> missile batteries, radars and AA guns, Vietnam would still be a
>> smoking monument to the defeat of communism at this hour.
>
>Lot of truth in that statement.

I don't know. Basically, Hanoi was a *very* well hardened target;
their defensive layers would cost several B-52s on every raid.
Basically, a missile battery is designed for killing aircraft and
theirs were state of the art. I think that stuff about how our air
force couldn't fire on AAA was all straight out of the movies. A
battery might not be able to stop the attacking aircraft from getting
by and hitting the city; however, they're just pretty damn good at
taking out aircraft coming straight on.

Essentially, the north's strategy was to be better at suviving damage
than the US was. They were correct in predicting that, if they could
inflict 10% of the casualties that they sustained upon the US, we
would eventually quit. They were right. Most of us were Boomers who
had always gotten everything we wanted. I'm not sure that we would
have won under any strategy. The Vietnamese would have simply upped
the ante and thrown more people into the meat-grinder until we were no
longer able to respond even at 10%.

Jones

[The Stumpster]

seems to me Ho didn't get what he was promised for leading the Viet Minh
against the Japanese and didn't the allies use Japanese soldiers to act
sorta like police in Vietnam right after the war? that's like a double
'fuck you' mister Ho

--
Phony PhDs need love too...someone's got to stir the shit
☺

[The Stumpster]

On 5/21/2015 10:58 AM, benj wrote:
> On 05/21/2015 11:49 AM, fi...@fubar.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 May 2015 16:41:32 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Nixon - still tried for victory
>>>
>>> While reducing troop numbers there rather drastically.
>>
>> He had scant choice in the matter.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, I liked old Tricky. Methinks that he was one of
>> our most capable presidents... certainly the most capable
>> *Republican*!
>>
>> What I really liked about him was that politics weren't ever boring
>> with Tricky around.
>>
>> Jones
>
> You were no hippie! To hippies Nixon was Satan incarnate!
>

don't be so quick to rush to judgement on Mr. ¡Jones. he was/is an
educated hippie.

[︰ones]

On Thu, 21 May 2015 17:13:15 GMT, in alt.war.vietnam
Ch...@anywhere.com wrote:

>Back in the '50s Joe McCarthy and the J Birch Society convinced many the
>communists in SE Asia posed a terrible and immediate threat to our country.
>This hysteria prevented any negotiations with Ho, or Castro. We had a
>similar terrorizing of the country when GW Bush was in power
>RM Nixon was McCarthy's right hand bimbo so it was truly ironic that Nixon
>was left to deal with the end game in Viet Nam.

Perhaps. My own bias is that McCarthy wasn't that important for the
long run; he was a big flash in the pan... but, yeah, he'd have had
some influence at a critical time; prolly had a lot of influence for a
short time.

Jones

[The Stumpster]

was Masson the evil women's hair color guy?

[The Stumpster]

On 5/21/2015 12:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> ¡Jones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in news:a05sla5r8jqb6arfasa7ktkg8j6e6nh0d2@

> 4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 21 May 2015 11:35:34 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Most of the bombing in Nam was conducted by LBJ and McNamara.
>>
>> This is a fact; however, the "secret bombings" to which he (or,
>> perhaps it changed gender?) refers didn't happen in 'Nam. Of course,
>> you Korean weenies aren't allowed to call it "'Nam", but I'll let it
>> slide because it didn't happen there.
>
> I was not in Korea. I was a "Tweener". I served two hitches between the
> end of Korea and the Missiles of October.
>

that might qualify you for the senior old phart of the group

>> They probably weren't exactly much of a secret to the people on the
>> ground, either.
>>
>> "Looky there, Pho; here come the US bombers."
>>
>> "Shhhhh! It's a secret!"
>>
>> Jones
>>



--

[RD Sandman]

The Stumpster <awrli...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:mjl6tc$vaj$4...@dont-email.me:

> On 5/21/2015 12:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> ¡Jones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in
>> news:a05sla5r8jqb6arfasa7ktkg8j6e6nh0d2@ 4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 21 May 2015 11:35:34 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most of the bombing in Nam was conducted by LBJ and McNamara.
>>>
>>> This is a fact; however, the "secret bombings" to which he (or,
>>> perhaps it changed gender?) refers didn't happen in 'Nam. Of
>>> course, you Korean weenies aren't allowed to call it "'Nam", but
>>> I'll let it slide because it didn't happen there.
>>
>> I was not in Korea. I was a "Tweener". I served two hitches between
>> the end of Korea and the Missiles of October.
>>
> that might qualify you for the senior old phart of the group

Very possibly.....folks have razzed me that when I was in, planes had two
wings and a spinny thing up front. ;)

[RD Sandman]

ĄJones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in
news:kd5slad2objbt9rug...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 21 May 2015 11:37:26 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> If the American soldiers, Navy, Air Force and Marines had been
allowed
>>> to fight the enemy, instead of avoiding sacred targets comprised of
>>> missile batteries, radars and AA guns, Vietnam would still be a
>>> smoking monument to the defeat of communism at this hour.
>>
>>Lot of truth in that statement.
>
> I don't know. Basically, Hanoi was a *very* well hardened target;
> their defensive layers would cost several B-52s on every raid.
> Basically, a missile battery is designed for killing aircraft and
> theirs were state of the art. I think that stuff about how our air
> force couldn't fire on AAA was all straight out of the movies.

Perhaps much of it was. Or you could read a book called Going Downtown,
the War against Hanoi and Washington by Colonel Jack Broughton. He was
my old CO. The following forward to the book was written by Tom Wolfe:

"Going Downtown" was the pilot's term for air raids against Hanoi, and
Colonel Jack Broughton, a veteran of the Korean War and former leader of
the Air Force Thunderbirds, who found himself leading young American
pilots from bases in Thailand into North Vietnam. They flew F-105
Thunderchief fighter bombers against targets more dangerous than any
experienced during WWII.

This is Broughton's story of those missions, of encounters with MIG
fighters, of split-second maneuvering to dodge SAM missiles, of
struggling to avoid radar guided anti-aircraft fire, and of trying to
cope with the worst flying weather in the world. It is also a bitter and
disturbing story of young fighter pilots sacrificed in a war controlled
by politicians ten thousand miles away.

Politically motivated restrictions prevented Broughton's men from
shooting at enemy planes until they had left the ground. Attacking enemy
guns or missile sites was made difficult by a maze of imaginary lines and
forbidden zones drawn in Washington. Missions were planned by non-flying
bureaucrats using the same attack routes day after day, and as a result
many lives were lost unecessarily. Broughton recites a host of sins -
overreliance on rear area battlefield management systems, over
confidence, unshakable faith in our technological superiority - that made
Washington as formidable an enemy as Hanoi. Broughton warns us sharply
against this woeful blindness to the capabilities of our enemies that may
cost us dearly in future conflicts.

Broughton's involvement in the war came to an end with the Turkestan
incident, in which two of his pilots, in the heat of battle,
inadvertently fired on a Soviet ship in Cam Pha harbor. The ritual
courts martial that followed, detailed here with savage irony, convinced
Broughton that his men were being asked to do the impossible in a world
not of military necessity but of political gamesmenship and a true
American hero ended his career on a sour note."




He also wrote another one named Thud Ridge. The Thud was an endearment
from the pilots who flew the F-105 Thunderchief in combat. Another
excellent book, IMHO.

[The Stumpster]

On 5/21/2015 1:49 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> ¡Jones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in

I think that folks looked up to the 105 Thuds in a way similar to the
A-1 'Spads' The Skyraider may have been God's gift to ground troops
whereas the Thud was the Devil of Downtown. them guys all had nuts of
steel...it was one thing to be a fighter guy...but the fighter bombers
were Mig bait.

[︰ones]

On Thu, 21 May 2015 13:49:03 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:

>He also wrote another one named Thud Ridge. The Thud was an endearment
>from the pilots who flew the F-105 Thunderchief in combat. Another
>excellent book, IMHO.

Yes, the "Thunderthud"... however, I never heard it spoken as a term
of endearment!

Jones

[︰ones]

On Thu, 21 May 2015 12:59:21 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam The Stumpster
<awrli...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>seems to me Ho didn't get what he was promised for leading the Viet Minh
>against the Japanese and didn't the allies use Japanese soldiers to act
>sorta like police in Vietnam right after the war? that's like a double
>'fuck you' mister Ho

Vietnam essentially capitulated to Japan in WWII and only had a token
Japanese presence.

Jones

[Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D.]

ĄJones wrote:

> On Wed, 20 May 2015 13:27:48 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "Dr. Nancy
> Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Truman - took French military back after WW2 and gave U.S. military equipment
>
>
> I am aware of the history of the Vietnam War, probably much more so
> than you are, sir. Truman could (and obviously should) have objected
> to the return of the Frogs; however, he didn't *take* them back.

Yes he did, son...taken back in U.S. ships crewed by Americans.

What history are you "aware of"? You seem pretty damn ignorant.

[Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D.]

Not really...it shows you both do not know the history.

The U.S. was very aware that either nuclear USSR or nuclear China
would directly enter the war...AS THEY STATED THEY WOULD...as China
had recently done in Korea (U.S. was effectively defeatd there).

>
>
>>Saigon would be a rotting hole in the ground, and we wouldn't have
>>refuge communes of Asian communists planted in the USA.

Yep, the truth is Americans did not give a shit about "South" Vietnamese people,
and those who pretended it was about democracy were/are big fat liars.

This realization contributed to rise of the anti-war side.

[Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D.]

RD Sandman wrote:

> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:mjjo0a$qd1$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>
>>"Corey Jepps" <cje...@sjrb.ca> wrote in message
>>news:1264f2244427fe09...@dizum.com...
>>
>>>Just like Bill Clinton started the Iraq war to avoid being
>>>impeached - and liberal democrats immediately blamed Republicans.
>>>
>>>All those liberal cowards packed their draft aged punks off to
>>>Canada.
>>>
>>
>>Technically, the Viet Nam war started during the Eisenhower
>>Administration, so pinning it on the Republicans is not a huge miss of
>>the Fact Train.
>>
>>
>
>
> Amazing phenomenon, eh?

There is no "techinical" start date, and depending on your agenda you
can pick most any ol arbitrary date.

However, I blame Eisenhower most because he had a great opportunity to
honor the agreed peace of the Geneva Accords (ending the French war)
but instead choose to thumb his nose and continue with U.S. war.

Back then the Democrats wanted the war too, so it's bullshit to try
to blame either Dems or Repubs.

[Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D.]

ĄJones wrote:

> On Wed, 20 May 2015 16:26:32 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "Dr. Nancy
> Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>While he (Nixon) drastically escalated the secret (from Americans) bombing.
>>
>>The secret bombing continued long past the '73 Paris Peace Accords,
>>and the U.S. military was still active in the war until the end in '75.
>
>
> Vinnie, the secret to understanding history, or at least approaching
> it with a modicum of intelligence, is to warm up to the idea that,
> regardless of how far back you want to go, one only finds cause and
> effect *after* one has chosen an arbitrary point of observation. Why
> pick 1950 as your zero point?

1950 is when the U.S. military established MACV in Saigon.

Prior to the French (and U.S.) defeat in 1954 the U.S. paid for 80%
of the war (and even had uniformed military actively participating).

yeah sure you can pick any ol date you want...that's what i said.
;-)

[Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D.]

RD Sandman wrote:
>
> Politically motivated restrictions

sour grapes...the whine of the losing side...the U.S. dropped
more bombs on little ol Vietnam than in *all* of WW2.
;-)

[Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D.]

RD Sandman wrote:
> "Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:jaudnZiPqrFwisDI...@supernews.com:
>
>
>>RD Sandman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:NM-dnYUof7OVc8HI...@supernews.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>ĄJones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 20 May 2015 01:20:17 +0200 (CEST), in talk.politics.guns
>>>>>"Corey Jepps" <cje...@sjrb.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Just like Bill Clinton started the Iraq war to avoid being
>>>>>>impeached - and liberal democrats immediately blamed Republicans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All those liberal cowards packed their draft aged punks off to
>>>>>>Canada.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, you're half right; the beginning of the Vietnam War traces to
>>>>>Kennedy.
>>>>
>>>>Truman - took French military back after WW2 and gave U.S. military
>>>>equipment Eisenhower - provided U.S. troops and gave equipment to
>>>>French Kennedy - sent U.S. military
>>>>LBJ - huge escalation
>>>>Nixon - still tried for victory
>>>
>>>
>>>While reducing troop numbers there rather drastically.
>>
>>While he (Nixon) drastically escalated the secret (from Americans)
>>bombing.
>
>
> Most of the bombing in Nam was conducted by LBJ and McNamara.

That is possibly correct...I don't recall yearly tonnage numbers, but
I'd bet Nixon's numbers are more than LBJ for the *entire* war area (not
just inside Nam). But *irrelevant* as *all* those Presidents would
have escalated to stop communist victory. (I view the attempt to
blame dems/repubs as just stupid usenet politics by morons)

>>The secret bombing continued long past the '73 Paris Peace Accords,
>>and the U.S. military was still active in the war until the end in
>>'75.
>
>
> I noticed you snipped the buildup dates and numbers. Is that typical of
> you?

I don't think anyone disagrees with those numbers. I snipped to avoid clutter.

So yes, I typically snip stuff I deem irrelevant.

Other numbers you could look at are the total U.S. KIA under Nixon/LBJ,
about half U.S. KIA were under Nixon. As I said...your blame game is nonsense.

Nixon was elected with a promise to end the war in a peaceful manner,
but he was a liar like LBJ...and millions more people died for it.

>>>It was also a very different war than our troops were prepared for.
>>
>>yep, Americans were arrogant as hell, expecting an easy victory, and
>>that had a lot to do with them getting their asses kicked.
>>
>>The U.S. military was in Vietnam for 25 years (1950-1975), with
>>mostly free rein (till '73) and vast resources, yet could not
>>accomplish its mission.
>
>
> It's initial mission was to support the French and act as advisors.

That was a failed mission (unless you deem supporting French failure a success).

The French mission was to maintain their Colonial Capitalism.

>>>>.until LBJ
>>>>realized that the Vietnamese people could fight back.
>>>
>>>
>>>It was known before then.
>>
>>Not by LBJ, who expected every escalation to be enough.
>
>
> LBJ was a moron who liked to place his hat over the speedometer in his
> car and drive fast.

well i suppose they were all morons

>>> LBJ's problem was in thinking he could
>>>micromanage the war from Washington. He would brag that our planes
>>>could not bomb a shithouse without his direction. Even McNamara, in
>>>hindsight, agrees that was a piss-poor way to run a war.
>>
>>well gee, losing is *always* a piss-poor way to run a war.
>>
>>but yeah...if they could have had just one more chance maybe
>>they would have won. Your excuses ring hollow.
>
>
> I didn't give any. I stated facts.

No, you gave the excuse for losing as due to LBJ micromanage.

>
>
>>give some credit to the victors.
>>;-)
>
>
> In war, there are no victors.

Very true...that's why I am strong anti-war.

[RD Sandman]

The Stumpster <awrli...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:mjlo0l$e90$1...@dont-email.me:

And SAMs..... Another special group that had those balls of steel were
the F-105 "Wild Weasels" who would bait and draw fire from the SAM sites
in Vietnam in order to reveal the site's position....then they would take
out the site.

They got coverage in Thud Ridge.

[RD Sandman]

ĄJones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in news:vq1tlap0p306qheh1iuoc8q3i907n6b5ra@
4ax.com:

Depends on which group one was flying with. They were also known as the
"Lead Sleds" or "Hyper Hogs". The closest we have to them today, IMHO, is
the A-10 Warthog.

[RD Sandman]

"Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:kaOdnZzVC7AUm8LI...@supernews.com:

Which, obviously, is the side you were on. Tell us just how you welcomed
our troops home from there?

[RD Sandman]

"Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:dPudnZtSK5jlisLI...@supernews.com:

Speaking of losers......I have yet to meet someone who introduces
themselves in an informal setting as Dr and PHD and really lives up to
those standards.

[RD Sandman]

"Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:x7-dneIlhedggMLI...@supernews.com:

And no one in this current portion of the thread is doing that.

>>>The secret bombing continued long past the '73 Paris Peace Accords,
>>>and the U.S. military was still active in the war until the end in
>>>'75.
>>
>>
>> I noticed you snipped the buildup dates and numbers. Is that typical
>> of you?
>
> I don't think anyone disagrees with those numbers. I snipped to avoid
> clutter.
>
> So yes, I typically snip stuff I deem irrelevant.
>
> Other numbers you could look at are the total U.S. KIA under
> Nixon/LBJ, about half U.S. KIA were under Nixon. As I said...your
> blame game is nonsense.

What blame game is that? All I did was to provide stats and who was
president when those stats were developed. If you think that is playing
the blame game, you will be very busy in here.

> Nixon was elected with a promise to end the war in a peaceful manner,
> but he was a liar like LBJ...and millions more people died for it.
>
>
>>>>It was also a very different war than our troops were prepared for.
>>>
>>>yep, Americans were arrogant as hell, expecting an easy victory, and
>>>that had a lot to do with them getting their asses kicked.
>>>
>>>The U.S. military was in Vietnam for 25 years (1950-1975), with
>>>mostly free rein (till '73) and vast resources, yet could not
>>>accomplish its mission.
>>
>>
>> It's initial mission was to support the French and act as advisors.
>
> That was a failed mission (unless you deem supporting French failure a
> success).

I don't.

> The French mission was to maintain their Colonial Capitalism.
>
>
>>>>>.until LBJ
>>>>>realized that the Vietnamese people could fight back.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It was known before then.
>>>
>>>Not by LBJ, who expected every escalation to be enough.
>>
>>
>> LBJ was a moron who liked to place his hat over the speedometer in
>> his car and drive fast.
>
> well i suppose they were all morons

I don't know who you mean by "all". I am sure you had to have more
specificity when you did your orals.

>>>> LBJ's problem was in thinking he could
>>>>micromanage the war from Washington. He would brag that our planes
>>>>could not bomb a shithouse without his direction. Even McNamara, in
>>>>hindsight, agrees that was a piss-poor way to run a war.
>>>
>>>well gee, losing is *always* a piss-poor way to run a war.
>>>
>>>but yeah...if they could have had just one more chance maybe
>>>they would have won. Your excuses ring hollow.
>>
>>
>> I didn't give any. I stated facts.
>
> No, you gave the excuse for losing as due to LBJ micromanage.

I said it was a piss poor way to run a war and it is.

>>give some credit to the victors.
>>>;-)
>>
>>
>> In war, there are no victors.
>
> Very true...that's why I am strong anti-war.

So am I, depending on the conditions and reasons.

>>>>>Amazing how little former soldiers who were there know.
>>>>>;-)

[︰ones]

On Fri, 22 May 2015 04:03:20 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "Dr. Nancy
Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>1950 is when the U.S. military established MACV in Saigon.
>
>Prior to the French (and U.S.) defeat in 1954 the U.S. paid for 80%
>of the war (and even had uniformed military actively participating).
>
>yeah sure you can pick any ol date you want...that's what i said.

No, that was absolutely *not* what you said; however, since you
frequently edit "what you said", we'll just live with it because we
have no choice. I can accept 1950 as well as any other date.

Now... about my blow job, you sexy little bitch... !

Jones

[︰ones]

On Fri, 22 May 2015 12:38:55 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:

>Depends on which group one was flying with. They were also known as the
>"Lead Sleds" or "Hyper Hogs". The closest we have to them today, IMHO, is
>the A-10 Warthog.

MYRON FRANCIS SMITH

1LT - O2 - Air Force - Reserve

Length of service 2 years
His tour began on Mar 12, 1967
Casualty was on Dec 17, 1967
In , SOUTH VIETNAM
HOSTILE, FIXED WING - PILOT
AIR LOSS, CRASH ON LAND
Body was recovered

Panel 32E - Line 16
***
My older brother... he died in a Thud.

Rest in peace, Bro.

Jones

[︰ones]

BTY, how do you like "Nancy"? Ain't she sweet? "It" is the well
known troll of the veteran's groups... we're all baby killers, you
know. You got fucked outta that, though... I bet you never killed any
babies!

Jones

[︰ones]

On Fri, 22 May 2015 12:44:20 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:

>Speaking of losers......I have yet to meet someone who introduces
>themselves in an informal setting as Dr and PHD and really lives up to
>those standards.

Meh!

[︰ones]

On Fri, 22 May 2015 03:19:14 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "Dr. Nancy
Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Yes he did, son...taken back in U.S. ships crewed by Americans.
>
>What history are you "aware of"? You seem pretty damn ignorant.

I'm just trying to get a quick piece of ass, Nancy... bend over and
hold still for a minute; they tell me this only hurts at first.

Jones

[︰ones]

On Fri, 22 May 2015 12:50:27 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:

>I don't know who you mean by "all". I am sure you had to have more
>specificity when you did your orals.

Bawhahaha... I bet he *did*!

[︰ones]

On Fri, 22 May 2015 03:49:25 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "Dr. Nancy
Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>There is no "techinical" start date, and depending on your agenda you
>can pick most any ol arbitrary date.
>
>However, I blame Eisenhower most because he had a great opportunity to
>honor the agreed peace of the Geneva Accords (ending the French war)
>but instead choose to thumb his nose and continue with U.S. war.
>
>Back then the Democrats wanted the war too, so it's bullshit to try
>to blame either Dems or Repubs.

Actually, Vinnie, that's about the first intelligent thing I have
heard you say in two decades. Congratulations.

[RD Sandman]

ĄJones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in
news:at3vlah6ih9urroo2...@4ax.com:

I will second that thought.

BTW, SAM?

[RD Sandman]

ĄJones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in news:pd4vlah1ap4hbjdtlmj9qvhv4ms9s61gba@
4ax.com:

Damn, we agree. ;)

[The Stumpster]

amen RIP

[RD Sandman]

ĄJones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in news:9m4vladq95kbtbb2pkmfnq38s4na12susk@
4ax.com:

If she is a he, that figures. Normally some one who has the title of Dr.
and PHD is considered as credentialed. In "Nancy's" case is seems
pompous.

[The Stumpster]

I PhigureD the PhrauD did his orals in a dark alley

[︰ones]

On Fri, 22 May 2015 12:41:08 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:

Dr. Nancy said:
>>>>Saigon would be a rotting hole in the ground, and we wouldn't have
>>>>refuge communes of Asian communists planted in the USA.

Then, later, she added:

>> Yep, the truth is Americans did not give a shit about "South"

>> Vietnamese people...

>Which, obviously, is the side you were on. Tell us just how you welcomed
>our troops home from there?

Sounds to me like she really cared about the Vietnamese people, huh?

Jones

[︰ones]

On Fri, 22 May 2015 17:09:49 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:

>If she is a he, that figures. Normally some one who has the title of Dr.
>and PHD is considered as credentialed. In "Nancy's" case is seems
>pompous.

Yeah... kind of a big waste of time. I usually don't pay any
attention and kill-file it as soon as I identify its latest iteration.
The veterans' groups attarct as many as your shower of loons, I guess;
they seem to be endemic.

Jones

[The Stumpster]

On 5/22/2015 5:09 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> ¡Jones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in news:9m4vladq95kbtbb2pkmfnq38s4na12susk@

> 4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 22 May 2015 12:50:27 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know who you mean by "all". I am sure you had to have more
>>> specificity when you did your orals.
>>
>> Bawhahaha... I bet he *did*!
>>
>>
>
> If she is a he, that figures. Normally some one who has the title of Dr.
> and PHD is considered as credentialed. In "Nancy's" case is seems
> pompous.
>

it changes gender faster than Bradley Manning and probably has no more
than an AA degree

[Scout]

"Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dPudnZtSK5jlisLI...@supernews.com...

Sure, and most weren't dropped on anything of significance, because the real
targets were "off limits".

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA4A26D41...@216.166.97.131...

> "Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:dPudnZtSK5jlisLI...@supernews.com:
>
>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>
>>> Politically motivated restrictions
>>
>> sour grapes...the whine of the losing side...the U.S. dropped
>> more bombs on little ol Vietnam than in *all* of WW2.
>> ;-)
>>
>
> Speaking of losers......I have yet to meet someone who introduces
> themselves in an informal setting as Dr and PHD and really lives up to
> those standards.

Well, if a quick internet search is any guide.....Doctor of Divinity.

http://ptstulsa.edu/DrNancyPittmanNamedNextDean

When it's all you got......

[Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D.]

Which "RD" will now again demonstrate with a stupid question...

>>
>>The U.S. was very aware that either nuclear USSR or nuclear China
>>would directly enter the war...AS THEY STATED THEY WOULD...as China
>>had recently done in Korea (U.S. was effectively defeatd there).
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>Saigon would be a rotting hole in the ground, and we wouldn't have
>>>>refuge communes of Asian communists planted in the USA.
>>
>>Yep, the truth is Americans did not give a shit about "South"
>>Vietnamese people, and those who pretended it was about democracy
>>were/are big fat liars.
>>
>>This realization contributed to rise of the anti-war side.
>
>
> Which, obviously, is the side you were on. Tell us just how you welcomed
> our troops home from there?

I wasn't there but they were immoral (murderers and babykillers) who
deserved to be greeted with scorn. The real heroes were the thousands
of military men who had the courage to stand up and say hell no we
won't do that.

But you obviously believe the "greet by spitting on them" crap. Use
your brain...try thinking...do you really believe that returning
vets would allow someone to spit on them...nationwide...hell no, the
spitter would get his ass kicked and it would be in the news. This
alleged spitting was actually formally investigated and found no news
articles reporting it. Any vet who let someone spit on them is a
coward. News of spitters getting their asses kicked would have
quickly ended the spitting. Never happened.

Some will *now* say they were spit on...probably seeking sympathy...or ptsd nuts.

Anyone believing that national spitting epidemic crap is a bone-fide gullible moron.
;-)

[Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D.]

ha!...whine...they held us back...we had one arm tied behind
our backs...the whine of any losing side...if we could just have
one more chance...we could bomb em back to the stone age...

whine whine whine...crybabies
;-)

[︰ones]

On Sat, 23 May 2015 05:29:57 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "Dr. Nancy
Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>But you obviously believe the "greet by spitting on them" crap. Use
>your brain...try thinking...do you really believe that returning

>vets would allow someone to spit on them... [...] Some will *now*

>say they were spit on...probably seeking sympathy...or ptsd nuts.

Vinnie, try reading the posting to which you respond. The "spitting"
issue has been discussed at length on the Vietnam Veterans' newsgroup
and the general consensus is that, while isolated incidents of
expectoration may have presented during ugly demonstrations, it never
occurred during routine returns at airports. (There was one spitting
incident recorded on film at Kent State the night prior to the
shootings.)

But, I think my main point is that RD never mentioned spitting; you
brought it up out of the blue. Why not drag in the Nazis? You
usually manage to do that.

Jones

[Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D.]

ĄJones wrote:
>
> Vinnie,

Who the hell is Vinnie?

[WestBass@gov.com Nik West]

"Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." wrote in message
news:D7udnTBt6fVK5f3I...@supernews.com...

ĄJones wrote:
>
> Vinnie,

Who the hell is Vinnie?

####
His mom. You know, the hairier one he breast fed from.

[RD Sandman]

ĄJones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in
news:a1bvla900tu31ij7e...@4ax.com:

I think she is trying to make a statement based on her political leanings.
A large chunk of bias in them.

[RD Sandman]

The Stumpster <awrli...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:mjoegf$ste$2...@dont-email.me:

One could easily think....

[Scout]

"Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:jqudndjv6fPU6P3I...@supernews.com...

I acknowledge your surrender....

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@vcenturylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:mjqafm$ui9$1...@dont-email.me:

Apparently, she(?) is an anti-war, anti-mimlitary troll who is rather
pompous and wishes to have an alphabet behind her name.

[Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D.]

The prick was a foreign invader killing innocent people...fuck em I say.
;-)

[︰ones]

On Sat, 23 May 2015 19:45:35 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "Dr. Nancy
Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> MYRON FRANCIS SMITH
>>
>> 1LT - O2 - Air Force - Reserve
>>
>> Length of service 2 years
>> His tour began on Mar 12, 1967
>> Casualty was on Dec 17, 1967
>> In , SOUTH VIETNAM
>> HOSTILE, FIXED WING - PILOT
>> AIR LOSS, CRASH ON LAND
>> Body was recovered
>>
>> Panel 32E - Line 16
>> ***
>> My older brother... he died in a Thud.
>>
>> Rest in peace, Bro.
>>
>> Jones
>>
>
>The prick was a foreign invader killing innocent people...fuck em I say.

You're so much fun, Vinnie! But, not to worry... it will take someone
much more intelligent than *you* to push my buttons. Remember that we
have known each other (in a Usenet sort of way) for nearly two
decades.

Jones

[RD Sandman]

"Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:d66dnXSJoJCPpvzI...@supernews.com:

Thank to "pricks" like him, you have the opportunity to run your fucking
mouth.

[Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D.]

No, son, you're backwards...thanks to pricks like me morons like you have freedoms.

Being military requires no intelligence whatsoever.

This smith prick most likely joined for the adventure of jet pilot.
;-)

[Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D.]

Son...we all can see your button was pushed...your brother was a murderer.
;-)

[Scout]

"Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FbGdnaLxz4GKb_zI...@supernews.com...

If you think that, then you've clearly never been in the military.

Stupid is great for cannon fodder, to win requires soldiers with
intelligence.

[RD Sandman]

"Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:FbGdnaLxz4GKb_zI...@supernews.com:

Whatever....at least he was willing to sacrifice for his country. More
than we would ever get out of you.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@vcenturylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:mjss6u$r41$1...@dont-email.me:

Yep. and leaders with the same.

[RD Sandman]

"Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:FbGdnd3xz4Gnb_zI...@supernews.com:

Son? He is almost as old as I am.

[Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D.]

U.S. founder T. Jefferson would have been appalled at U.S. in Vietnam war.

> Being military requires no intelligence whatsoever.

Correction: no moral intelligence whatsoever...just follow orders

> This smith prick most likely joined for the adventure of jet pilot.
> ;-)

yep...the prick likely joined reserves, as was/is common, to get
training for a career with the airlines (and to avoid draft).
;-)

[Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D.]

well yeah some have to be intelligent, but intelligence is not required.

is english your 1st language
;-)

[Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D.]

whatever...your military worship would fit in *any* country so
means nothing special...but this prick most likely, as was common,
joined the reserves to get free pilot training for a career in
airlines...and to avoid the draft as it was first believed that
reserves would not be deployed to war...that was common 1965 thinking.
;-)

[One Party System]

"Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:NM-dnYUof7OVc8HI...@supernews.com:

> ˇJones wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 May 2015 01:20:17 +0200 (CEST), in talk.politics.guns
>> "Corey Jepps" <cje...@sjrb.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Just like Bill Clinton started the Iraq war to avoid being
>>>impeached - and liberal democrats immediately blamed Republicans.
>>>
>>>All those liberal cowards packed their draft aged punks off to
>>>Canada.
>>
>>
>> Well, you're half right; the beginning of the Vietnam War traces to
>> Kennedy.
>
> Truman - took French military back after WW2 and gave U.S. military
> equipment Eisenhower - provided U.S. troops and gave equipment to French
> Kennedy - sent U.S. military
> LBJ - huge escalation
> Nixon - still tried for victory
> Ford - no mas, end of war
>
> Truman to LBJ expected little resistance and easy victory...until LBJ
> realized that the Vietnamese people could fight back.
>
> Amazing how little former soldiers who were there know.
> ;-)

How doc, are you playing doctor with little boys again?

You are only supposed to call yourself Doctor if you've earned it, not to
sound as if you know what you are talking about.

--
There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient
to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an
easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to
make themselves prominent before the public.

Booker T. Washington

[Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D.]

Son, my words, not my academic honors, speak for themselves...as it should be.

If you disagree with my words, then jump in.

If you're just jealous of my academic honors...well...tuff shit.
;-)

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 09:46:04 -0700, "Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D."
<nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:


>If you're just jealous of my academic honors...well...tuff shit.

Did you win the Shiniest Waste Baskets Award again this year? Wow!

That's like ten years in a row for you, isn't it?

[Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D.]

huh?

[Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D.]

yes son, you both appear to be about the same age.
;-)

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 10:10:44 -0700, "Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D."

<nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 09:46:04 -0700, "Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D."
>> <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>If you're just jealous of my academic honors...well...tuff shit.
>>
>>
>> Did you win the Shiniest Waste Baskets Award again this year? Wow!
>>
>> That's like ten years in a row for you, isn't it?
>>
>
>huh?

I see they didn't choose you for your mental abilities.

[meport]

On 5/19/2015 7:20 PM, Corey Jepps wrote:
> Just like Bill Clinton started the Iraq war to avoid being
> impeached - and liberal democrats immediately blamed Republicans.
>
> All those liberal cowards packed their draft aged punks off to
> Canada.
>

The more I read right wing propaganda, the more I realize that the
people who write it are ignoramuses all bordering on being morons.

The first American Advisors killed in Vietnam were killed in 1959.
Guess who was the President in 1959? You can have 3 guesses.

If you guessed JFK, a Democrat, you'd be wrong. If you guessed HST, a
Democrat, you'd be wrong. But if you guessed Dwight Eisenhower, A
REPUBLICAN, you just won the grand prize. So who started the Vietnam
War and started American involvement in Vietnam, yep, you'd be right if
you guessed REPUBLICANS, specifically Dwight Eisenhower and John Foster
Dulles!!! And guess what? Dwight Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles
WERE NOT REPUBLICANS!!!

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/timeline_vietnam_war.htm

--
-- --- meport

[Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D.]

Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> On Sun, 24 May 2015 10:10:44 -0700, "Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D."
> <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 24 May 2015 09:46:04 -0700, "Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D."
>>><nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you're just jealous of my academic honors...well...tuff shit.
>>>
>>>
>>>Did you win the Shiniest Waste Baskets Award again this year? Wow!
>>>
>>>That's like ten years in a row for you, isn't it?
>>>
>>
>>huh?
>
>
> I see they didn't choose you for your mental abilities.

who?

[Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D.]

meport wrote:

> On 5/19/2015 7:20 PM, Corey Jepps wrote:
>
>> Just like Bill Clinton started the Iraq war to avoid being
>> impeached - and liberal democrats immediately blamed Republicans.
>>
>> All those liberal cowards packed their draft aged punks off to
>> Canada.
>>
> The more I read right wing propaganda, the more I realize that the
> people who write it are ignoramuses all bordering on being morons.
>
> The first American Advisors killed in Vietnam were killed in 1959. Guess
> who was the President in 1959? You can have 3 guesses.

1957

and playing the dem/repub blame game is nonsense.
;-)

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 10:27:57 -0700, "Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D."

So, when you read the word "you" does that fire any synapses in your
brain at all?

Either of them?

[Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D.]

Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> On Sun, 24 May 2015 10:27:57 -0700, "Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D."
> <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 24 May 2015 10:10:44 -0700, "Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D."
>>><nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 24 May 2015 09:46:04 -0700, "Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D."
>>>>><nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>If you're just jealous of my academic honors...well...tuff shit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Did you win the Shiniest Waste Baskets Award again this year? Wow!
>>>>>
>>>>>That's like ten years in a row for you, isn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>huh?
>>>
>>>
>>>I see they didn't choose you for your mental abilities.
>>
>>who?
>
>
> So, when you read the word "you" does that fire any synapses in your
> brain at all?
>
> Either of them?

they?
;-)

[Scout]

"Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:_5mdnV3oFcc3ZPzI...@supernews.com...

Intelligence is required. Stupid people don't live long enough to win, they
simply die and often take a few of their buddies with them.

Why else do you suppose we don't let stupid people into our military?

The answer is, as noted above, you have no idea of what you're talking
about.

[Scout]

"Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:s5GdnZMy0MmSnf_I...@supernews.com...

> One Party System wrote:
>
>> "Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:NM-dnYUof7OVc8HI...@supernews.com:

Sorry, but a doctorate in Religion really doesn't count for a whole lot out
here in the real world.

But hey, if you think tacking a title and some letters on your name will
make your stupidity seem less stupid to anyone....

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 10:52:18 -0700, "Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D."

Oh I see. You need this explained.

I was referring to your"academic honors," which of course revolve
around your duties as one of the campus custodians.

No sense being modest about it. We all know about your win of the
coveted "Mr. Clean" trophy in 2011, and your sweep of the "Al Gore
Biodegradable Challenge" for an unprecedented five years running.

You're a legend.

[︰ones]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:09:27 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:

>Son? He is almost as old as I am.

Yeah, well... meh!

I have no further comment as it would only waste time.

Jones

[︰ones]

< Snip >

Yawn...

[Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D.]

oh bullshit, son...think about what you post. e.g. suppose *both* sides are stupid.
and there is no requirement for stupid people to live...cannon fodder can be useful.
and there is no requirement for moral intelligence...just follow orders.

you seem somewhat stupid yourself so i'm done with you have a nice day
;-)

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:16:43 -0700, "Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D."
<nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Scout wrote:
>> "Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:_5mdnV3oFcc3ZPzI...@supernews.com...
>>> Scout wrote:
>>>> "Dr. Jian Chang, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:FbGdnaLxz4GKb_zI...@supernews.com...
>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> "Dr. Nancy Pittman, Ph.D." <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:d66dnXSJoJCPpvzI...@supernews.com:

==================================================
==================================================
================= WARNING! ========================
GOAL POST MOVES AHEAD!
================= WARNING! ========================
==================================================
==================================================