In a vaccum communism isn't just ideal, it's perfect. But get real we don't live in a vacuum, people that work harder should earn more, and there isn't a thing in the world that any government can do to change that.

We aren't put on this earth to be subjects of a regime. Government should not be the lynch pin of our lives, it should meerly be a institution to accomplish the goods/services that must be provided in order for society to function.

The greatest thing about this country is that red loonies like KOD can say whatever they want without the fear of persecution, and similarly I can call him a stalinistic marxonian oppression bearing harbinger of a future that will never happen.

__________________

Oh boy.

PAVN,he commanded the PAVN,in the role of CIC during the war.Here he is in the quote,in his own words telling you (assuming you read it) that the US strategy was not flawed and had him on the verge of defeat.It was the medias misreporting about the true nature of the war that kept the pressure on politicans here to change their brutal,take no prisoners strategy into something more restrained.Here the General is telling as much and you disbelieve him then try to segway into some retarded comparison to Iraq.With all due respect to Powell ,who I find admirable as a soldier but somwhat cheezy as a diplomat,Ill have to go with the Generals word and the history of the battles fought.

Whether 'we' shouldve fought them is....opinion.

We 'provoked' 911?Saddams brutality to his people,Saddams lust for banned weaponry,his indifference to the world? He provoked his own downfall.He is gone.The facts support the contention if Saddam gave up hed still either be in power or at least alive and in exile.

Corrupt politicians? cmon.How about some details instead of sweeping broadstrokes.I could go thru any politicans background and find something we could all agree is either corrupt or a benefit of a corrupt system.

Its only people like yourself that refuse to listen to the military leading the way ,that have this delusion that were fighting a battle with no goals and no end solution.Just like the fanciful story about Bush constantly changing the reasons for the war,theres been very little in the way of change when describing the conditions necsessary for redeployment of US troops.Because they dont include exact dates and numbers and updates to your personal email account,you feel left out? Please.

While theres plenty of tactical information to be gleened from the up close and personal battles during the counterinsurgency in Vietnam,theres simply not alot else to compare the two.They are not the same war,do some homework.Not even close.

__________________

read your retarded statement again and then look at this:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/giap.asp

i accept your apology

__________________
“Mayor Palin fails to have a firm grasp of something very simple: the truth.”

[Frontiersman editorial, 2/7/97]

The problem with the Vietnam war is that it was started by the Democrats. Conservatives were not all that keen on the notion. It was the Left that started the war and it was the Media that ended it.

Go around and ask soldiers and generals who were in Vietnam about the Tet Offensive of 1968. The Media outright LIED about what was going on and as a result turned public opinion. That's pretty powerful, no? Walter Kronkite & Co. because they were so recognisable and trusted, millions and millions of Americans believed the garbage they were being fed. The American people trusted the Media to tell them what was happening over there, obviously. The Government position will be skewed to a certain extent. The problem here is that the Media was able to lie about what was going on and was motivated solely by profit.

The Media managed to start and win a silent revolution essentially. People trust the Media too much now, cuz thats won they won, trust. Don't you see? The Media lied about the war and convinced the majority of Americans we were losing. Because everyone believed them, they started thinking the war was being lost and added to the anti-war movement. The Media was making out that it was better to cut our losses and leave, basically saying what people wanted to hear. The Government weren't saying this, so the people in their ignorant bliss listened to things they like to hear. So the Media turned people against the war because they played too their emotion, that is they showed American bodies, things on fire (replayed images all of course). This was all profit driven and inevitable for a Capitalist/Democratic country entering the Information Age. The people who control the information will eventually push their own viewpoint across. These people however are unelected. Unlike the government, they cannot be overthrown. So people who don't represent our viewpoints (necessarily) and are not elected are controlling the informaton coming to me. They're power is so great is that they managed to lie and fabricate their way into convincing America we were losing.

Much like Fox drumming up support for the Iraq War and glossing over what really happened in Hurricane Katrina.

Very scary, wouldn't you agree?

__________________
I'll tell you this no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn
Nothing to kill or die for and no religion too
You may bury my body, down by the highway side,
so my old evil spirit can get a Greyhound bus and ride.

The weapons had little to do with the US deafeat - eg Germany had superior weapons in almost every category in WWII. The US lost because Johnson had a bunch of non-military ivy league types (McNamara, Rostow, George Ball, etc) run the war

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

Justabubba'spost:

The above is just the standard liberal revision of history that we all know and love - this revision has become an article of faith among the lib establishment to help them doublethink away the stubborn facts that it was libs who started the war, libs who mis-ran the war, libs who mis-reported the war, and libs who lost the war.

The effect of the distorted media reporting of the war was a key factor in it's disgraceful end, beyond any question, in particular, the wholesale misreporting of the Tet Offensive. The Tet offensive, in which the Viet cong threw away their guerrilla rule book and (together with some NVA forces) attacked the main cities of south vietnam, was an unmitigated disaster for them. The VC attemped conventional warfare without the resources available to a conventional army: they suffered from poor communications and intelligence and no supporting air cover or heavy artillery. In city after city, they were simply cornered and killed. They thought they would trigger a massive uprising by the people, but that never happened. The decimation of the VC cadres was so thorough-going (tens of thousands of VC killed) that they essentially never recovered, the "liberation" of south vietnam was effected largely by regular NVA troops.

Now, what did the media report? One famous video clip showed that VC sappers had penetrated US embassy grounds in saigon by blowing a hole in the wall. Of course, they were just cornered and killed in the court yard. But the the lib media networks just showed the hole in the US embassy wall, with voice over like "Duhhh, how can we win if they can attack our embassy in the heart of Saigon? Duh?" Of course, any suicidal person can attack anything in a guerilla war - eg, you could jump onto the white house grounds any day and start firing at the building, and you'll be killed, and SO WHAT? That was the total tone of the media after Tet "Omigarsh - they attacked the cities!". Nothing was ever reported at the time that the net effect was not much more than that the VC had committed group suicide. The impression left by the lib media was that the US and south vietnam had suffered a terrible defeat, and many polls showed that that was the point where most americans turned against the war, but why shouldn't they? They had been fed wholsale distortions.

But what of the army report? Yes, the war was misrun. Johnson put Robert McNamara in charge of it - a guy who thought he could run it like he ran Ford corporation. He and other civilians concocted novel ideas of warfare that contradicted thousands of years of military history, such as "gradual escalation", refusing to blockade north vietnam ports, forcing bombers to go through "corridors" where they were sitting ducks, etc etc.

The lib media and Johnson's Ivy League civilian amateur generals -the one-two liberal punch that knocked the US out of the war.

the vietnam war was begun on the democrats' watch but it was initiated by the neocon segment of the party. the progressive/liberal members were outspoken in their opposition to elevating what had initially been small numbers of soldiers sent in as "advisors" [that advisory practice had only recently been found effective in stabilizing a desirable govermnment in the congo]. the republicans (you termed it conservatives, which is inaccurate) were not complicit in the expansion of the vietnam conflict.

i don't have to ask, i lived with a viet vet in a military community just outside vietnam at the time. and would be one myself before war's end. the media reported what it saw. just like today's reporters seldom venture outside the protected green zone in iraq, those who ventured out into the boonies were rare. dan rather established his reputation there, sending back footage of fire fights and American casualties inflicted and taken. i encourage you to read Graham Greenes' "The Quiet American" to gain a better understanding of the vietnam we were in before we lost the war and the interplay between journalists and the governmental, military and civilian players. so, i would not accept your presentation that the media intentionally skewed what it reported, but sometimes that information was manipulated ... which is one reason you should really read Frank Snepp's book described above. i find your argument that the media's reporting was shaped by profit motive to be absolutely false. the half-hour daily news programs were not a profitable segment of the three major networks. in short, there was no profit to be realized by manipulating the news.

by and large the troops in vietnam were not supportive of what they had been drafted to fight. just as in iraq, our soldiers were easily recognized by the the enemy but could not recognize which of the vietnamese they encountered who were their enemies unless they were engaged in a fire fight or were in battle against uniformed nva regulars. they would assault a target and take it, sometimes at significant cost, only to relinquish it. everyone over there knew that we were not fighting to win, just fighting not to lose ... again, not unlike present day iraq. and the media reported that. the vietnamese government was overrun with crooks and corruption was rampant (just like today) and they reported that as well. other than a daily body count, there was little positive for the media to report. imagine what would happen today if the iraqi insurgents overran the green zone in baghdad. those reporters ensconced in relative safety would be be terrified that their semblance of safety had been eliminated and that is how they would report the outcome. that's exactly the same as a media surprised by the tet offensive. their relative safety had dissolved and that is what was reported. that such an assault was possible had not been contemplated, which definately colored how the media reported it. tet was a military loss for the communists but it probably turned the tide of war. mcnamara and his ivy league nit wits were similarly shaken, as was his toady general westmoreland. they could never seem to unring the bell that the opposition had rung. the indigenous vietnamese had to also recognize that by remaining loyal to the USA they might be jeopardizing their futures, because the communist offensive was stunning in unprecedented scale for them, too.
the objective for our troops thereafter was to get in your 12 months and get back to the states in one piece. (i hope that is not also the present circumstance in iraq.) morale was shot, the president and congress were directing the war, placing limits on what could be done (bombing and blockading the north and forbidding following the enemy into its havens in laos/cambodia). as the military historian noted, the strategy was tragically flawed. back home, in addition to seeing dan rather and his reports, many of us had friends and family return in body bags, and many others were severely hurt. the economy was starting to tank and the deficit was growing because of the war.

yes, people who control the media can push a viewpoint, but that is even less critical today as during the vietnam period. there were three major tv networks, about the same amount of radio and print media. each of those means of media distribution required substantial infrastructure. today, we can all post our opinions on the net, without owning a radio/tv station or newspaper company. a stupid population is more prone to fall for a media that force feeds its drivel, and i do see the intellect of our nation's population in steady decline. news broadcasting is now a profit center, which is another change. but notice that the reporters were embedded this time around in iraq. we got to see what the government wanted us to see. my fear is not an uncontrolled media but one working in concert with the government ... the one you appear to endorse. and that is a scary prospect

__________________
“Mayor Palin fails to have a firm grasp of something very simple: the truth.”

[Frontiersman editorial, 2/7/97]

it was neocons who ran up this war, too. they sold it using that domino theory refrain, if we don't fight them over there we will have to fight them over here. sound familiar? as noted above, it was the democrats this time out who screwed the pooch and launched the war, with that questionable gulf of tonkin incident. it was that same ultra-conservative wing that mismanaged the war, and suprisingly, you got the description of mcmanara and company right in your post. the liberals were the ones trying to prevent the war from getting ramped up; i don't think you are going to try to convince us that the liberal democrats were trying to convince the liberal democrats to end the war. that should be sufficient proof that this was a conservative led outing.

your description of the tet offensive is actually quite accurate. but what you seem to get wrong is the result. that tet campaign turned the war for the communists, just as they had gambled. the south vietnamese citizens no longer were comfortable, certainly the south vietnamese fighting forces were shaken as were American forces and USA government as well as our nation's population. the unthinkable happened ... all of the pro-impervious American propaganda was undermined when the communists showed how vulnerable south viet nam actually was. so, from a pure body count this was a loss for the invaders. but if they "lost" the battle this allowed ho to win the war.

Now, what did the media report? One famous video clip showed that VC sappers had penetrated US embassy grounds in saigon by blowing a hole in the wall. Of course, they were just cornered and killed in the court yard. But the the lib media networks just showed the hole in the US embassy wall, with voice over like "Duhhh, how can we win if they can attack our embassy in the heart of Saigon? Duh?" Of course, any suicidal person can attack anything in a guerilla war - eg, you could jump onto the white house grounds any day and start firing at the building, and you'll be killed, and SO WHAT? That was the total tone of the media after Tet "Omigarsh - they attacked the cities!". Nothing was ever reported at the time that the net effect was not much more than that the VC had committed group suicide. The impression left by the lib media was that the US and south vietnam had suffered a terrible defeat, and many polls showed that that was the point where most americans turned against the war, but why shouldn't they? They had been fed wholsale distortions.

But what of the army report? Yes, the war was misrun. Johnson put Robert McNamara in charge of it - a guy who thought he could run it like he ran Ford corporation. He and other civilians concocted novel ideas of warfare that contradicted thousands of years of military history, such as "gradual escalation", refusing to blockade north vietnam ports, forcing bombers to go through "corridors" where they were sitting ducks, etc etc.

The lib media and Johnson's Ivy League civilian amateur generals -the one-two liberal punch that knocked the US out of the war.[/quote]
we agree incompetents were mismanaging the war (the similarities between now and then are staggering). we agree the war was lost. you attribute the loss to our media ... which never fired a shot. the media was the whipping boy for the lost war. our national pride was soiled worse than a newborn's pamper. the government, by now tricky dick and spiro agnew, could not acknowledge the truth, that we should not have been in the war. once in, we failed to let the military run it to win it - because of the government's interference, NOT due to the media's reporting of events as they unfolded.
the gestation for a conservative dominated media was simultaneous with the fall of viet nam.

__________________
“Mayor Palin fails to have a firm grasp of something very simple: the truth.”

[Frontiersman editorial, 2/7/97]

Vietnam was just one battle in the war on communism, a battle that our leadership understood was best not won. In hindsight, was it the right decision not to attack China directly even though they were fighting us in Vietnam? Yes. Could the battle in Vietnam been won without open war with China? No.

The cold war is won and over. We made all the right decisions despite the best intentions of the hippies, who were pretty much wrong about everything.

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

Lyndon Johnson was a "neocon"? Neocons didn't even exist back then.

Quote:

they sold it using that domino theory refrain, if we don't fight them over there we will have to fight them over here. sound familiar? as noted above, it was the democrats this time out who screwed the pooch and launched the war, with that questionable gulf of tonkin incident. it was that same ultra-conservative wing that mismanaged the war, and suprisingly, you got the description of mcmanara and company right in your post. the liberals were the ones trying to prevent the war from getting ramped up; i don't think you are going to try to convince us that the liberal democrats were trying to convince the liberal democrats to end the war. that should be sufficient proof that this was a conservative led outing.

Focus now, sport. The history of US presidents becoming involved there started with eisenhower. The french requested that the US conduct bombing raids to rescue their trapped forces at dien bien phu in 1954. Eisenhower declined. In 1961- 63, president Kennedy, a liberal, sent thousands of special forces there as "advisors". Finally, Johnson requested and received from the (democrat-controlled) congress the tonkin gulf resolution. From wiki:

Yet Johnson went on with the war, 1963-1969. The decision to go to war was strictly that of Johnson, one of the most liberal democrat presidents ever. Your usual fantasizing aside, there were no conservatives or neocons to blame.

Sometimes it seems as if you are BLIND. What do you do with my posts? Do a three-second scan and register a few key words?? No south vietnam soldier or american soldier believed it "turned the war" for the communists - they had just got finished detroying the VC. ONLY the US population was "shaken", because they had gotten a wildly distorted report of what had happened fromthe liberal media.

Quote:

we agree incompetents were mismanaging the war (the similarities between now and then are staggering). we agree the war was lost. you attribute the loss to our media ... which never fired a shot.

Really? You are just brushing past, without rebuttal, what I described of their role.



Uh, dude - if you don't stop this talking to yourself, and refusing to debate, your whole perception of the world will never be more that fantasies in your head.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847