Wow, I wasn’t aware Kerry was spitting on returning soldiers. The BASTARD!
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The “humanitarian aid” sent to the North Vietnamese by some in the antiwar movement (not John Kerry) went straight to the NVA soldiers fighting US soldiers.
Even if you are antiwar you should not be sending supplies to the terrorists.
[/quote]
Since when are the VC considered terrorists?
Maybe the anti-war crowd thought that since the military government the US helped overthrow the south(even if it was unintentional, which is uncertain) was receiving help in what was essentially a civil war, it was only fair to provide humanitarian aid to the other side?
[quote]vroom wrote:
why not? You inflate your lift #'s to make yourself look better…
(rolling eyes, whistling and walking away…)
ROFLMFAO. Finally, Joe says something truly funny! Nice shot![/quote]
Shit…the best part is you and RJ AGREED on it being a good shot…there’s hope for us all!!!
Alex -
Don’t you have some way important grad student research to do? Why even bother with us children of a lesser god?
Alexander wrote:
"Since when are the VC considered terrorists?
Maybe the anti-war crowd thought that since the military government the US helped overthrow the south(even if it was unintentional, which is uncertain) was receiving help in what was essentially a civil war, it was only fair to provide humanitarian aid to the other side?"
What country do you currently reside in?
“only fair to provide humanitarian aid to the other side”
News flash: The Americans were fighting the VC.
Unbelievable!!!
JeffR
[quote]vroom wrote:
When the soldiers came home from Vietnam some of them were spit on by war prostestors.
Wow, I wasn’t aware Kerry was spitting on returning soldiers. The BASTARD![/quote]
I never said Kerry was spitting on soldiers or sending material aid to the enemy. He was closely associated with others in the movement that did these things.
I am simply trying to explain why many vets dislike Kerry. Whether it is fair to dislike someone for the actions of their associates is another debate.
STRAWMAN.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The “humanitarian aid” sent to the North Vietnamese by some in the antiwar movement (not John Kerry) went straight to the NVA soldiers fighting US soldiers.
Even if you are antiwar you should not be sending supplies to the terrorists.
Since when are the VC considered terrorists?
Maybe the anti-war crowd thought that since the military government the US helped overthrow the south(even if it was unintentional, which is uncertain) was receiving help in what was essentially a civil war, it was only fair to provide humanitarian aid to the other side?[/quote]
The VC were terrorists by nature. If you have studied this period of our history, you will see they were commonly referred to as terrorists. They set off bombs on the streets of Saigon. They murdered schoolteachers, mayors, etc.
The Vietnam War was an invasion, not a civil war. The North invaded the South. Many VC were actually North Vietnamese Army(NVA).
I do not consider this a civil war any more than the Korean War is a civil war.
If the US invaded Canada would that be a civil war? We speak the same language (for the most part). The border is an artificial boundry. We are all North Americans.
Yet you don’t mention what the military regime established in the south did, or how many north vietnamese civilians were killed. MacNamara acknowledges that it was handled all wrong, and the US was mistaken in it’s assertion that their patrol ship was attacked by the north, and their assumption about the intentions behind the hostility.
[quote]I never said Kerry was spitting on soldiers or sending material aid to the enemy. He was closely associated with others in the movement that did these things.
I am simply trying to explain why many vets dislike Kerry. Whether it is fair to dislike someone for the actions of their associates is another debate.
STRAWMAN. [/quote]
Strawman? How dare you insult excellent sarcasm like that. Buffoon!
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Yet you don’t mention what the military regime established in the south did, or how many north vietnamese civilians were killed. MacNamara acknowledges that it was handled all wrong, and the US was mistaken in it’s assertion that their patrol ship was attacked by the north, and their assumption about the intentions behind the hostility.[/quote]
WTF does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Go back to your all important research, school-boy.
You asked why vets disliked Kerry and I answered.
You do not mention how many South Vietnamese were killed by the North either.
Of course McNamara admits the war was handled incorrectly. It was micromanaged by LBJ. His admission is like admitting the sun will come up every day.
The debate over why we fought the war has been done to death. LBJ supposedly fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident. You will not catch me defending LBJ. He was a horrible president and a horrible human being.
Read your history, you have a few valid points but it appears that you are only willing to look at one side of the argument.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I never said Kerry was spitting on soldiers or sending material aid to the enemy. He was closely associated with others in the movement that did these things.
I am simply trying to explain why many vets dislike Kerry. Whether it is fair to dislike someone for the actions of their associates is another debate.
STRAWMAN.
Strawman? How dare you insult excellent sarcasm like that. Buffoon![/quote]
Sorry I missed the sarcasm.
Zap, I don’t mention the south’s losses because those are commonly considered. I think it’s hprocritical (at best) to, in a war, call one side “terrorists” when both sides are killing each other. If killing civilians makes you a terrorist, then every country that has ever fought a war has committed terrorist acts.
Rainjack, what is the matter with you, are you not getting laid or something? Yes, I do research. Yes, I think it’s important. Why do you keep mentioning it? I don’t think this obsession of yours is entirely healthy. You might want to bring this up, when you talk to your therapist next time you are discussing your masculinity issues.
Zap/Rain,
What you are failing to recognize is that North Vietam was communist!!!
Thefore, to Alexander, they were the Good Guys!!!
Per Alexander: “It wasn’t fair that the North Vietnamese didn’t get aid.”
Please follow the bread crumbs next time!!!
JeffR
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Rainjack, what is the matter with you, are you not getting laid or something? Yes, I do research. Yes, I think it’s important. Why do you keep mentioning it? I don’t think this obsession of yours is entirely healthy. You might want to bring this up, when you talk to your therapist next time you are discussing your masculinity issues.[/quote]
I appreciate your interest in my sex life. My problem with you is your demonstrated ineptness in every subject you opine on.
You are a kid. A head full of mush that has this Al-like overestimation of self-worth. I don’t like you. It’s not a masculinity issue. You are a communist sympathizing Canadian idiot.
Once again you severely over-estimate your standing in my life. If I had a therapist, I can guarantee you I wouldn’t waste any part of my half hour talking about someone as worthless as you.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Zap/Rain,
What you are failing to recognize is that North Vietam was communist!!!
[/quote]
no they weren’t. They had no interest in economic systems. It is true that they turned to the USSR for help, but it was not because of shared ideology.
I try to avoid determining calling one side “the good guys” and the other “the bad guys”. It is an oversimplification, in which you inevitably commit a fundemental attribition error. I suspect a person would have to be borderline retarded to think in terms of “good guys” and “bad guys”.
When you use quotation marks, it is important to quote verbatim, or make it entirely obvious you are not. making stuff up, and putting it around quotes makes you look disingenuous
This goes well beyond a question of “fairness”. It is very likely that, had the south not been receiving help from the US, the north never would have turned to the USSR for help.
Afghanistan may be analogous, since one side of the internal struggle called in the USSR for support, and the other side had to turn to the US for help, even though they hated the US almost as much. Likewise, North Vietnam was certainly not in love with the USSR, but asking them for help seemed like a better alternative than having the americans replace the french as the subjugating colonial power, which was the vietnamese perception at that time.
But you know what, this might all be a little to complicated for you. Go right ahead and dumb it down as far as you need in order for it to make sense to you.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Zap, I don’t mention the south’s losses because those are commonly considered. I think it’s hprocritical (at best) to, in a war, call one side “terrorists” when both sides are killing each other. If killing civilians makes you a terrorist, then every country that has ever fought a war has committed terrorist acts.
Rainjack, what is the matter with you, are you not getting laid or something? Yes, I do research. Yes, I think it’s important. Why do you keep mentioning it? I don’t think this obsession of yours is entirely healthy. You might want to bring this up, when you talk to your therapist next time you are discussing your masculinity issues.[/quote]
The South Vietnamese did not invade the North (other than a few patrols).
The South Vietnamese did not selectively murder the North Vietnamese teachers, mayors, intellectuals, etc. They did not throw handgrenades into bus windows in Hanoi.
The US did bomb the North a few times, but only temporarily to bring the North to the Paris peace talks. (Linebacker 1 and Linebacker 2) as well as a number of missions to take out SAM’s.
For the most part the North was offlimits. This was one of the major flaws in our war effort.
Are you just messing with me or do you really not know this stuff?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Rainjack, what is the matter with you, are you not getting laid or something? Yes, I do research. Yes, I think it’s important. Why do you keep mentioning it? I don’t think this obsession of yours is entirely healthy. You might want to bring this up, when you talk to your therapist next time you are discussing your masculinity issues.
I appreciate your interest in my sex life. My problem with you is your demonstrated ineptness in every subject you opine on.
You are a kid. A head full of mush that has this Al-like overestimation of self-worth. I don’t like you. It’s not a masculinity issue. You are a communist sympathizing Canadian idiot.
Once again you severely over-estimate your standing in my life. If I had a therapist, I can guarantee you I wouldn’t waste any part of my half hour talking about someone as worthless as you.[/quote]
all show and no go, I suppose.
Look, if I am so unimportant to you, why do you keep making comments directly at me? Furthermore, why are your comments directed at my personal life?
You insist that it isn’t a masculinity issue, yet nearly all your insults are immasculating.
You call me an idiot, and say my academic achievements (which YOU keep bringing up) are worthless, yet you are an MBA. I mean seriously, give it a rest.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The South Vietnamese did not invade the North (other than a few patrols).
The South Vietnamese did not selectively murder the North Vietnamese teachers, mayors, intellectuals, etc. They did not throw handgrenades into bus windows in Hanoi.
The US did bomb the North a few times, but only temporarily to bring the North to the Paris peace talks. (Linebacker 1 and Linebacker 2) as well as a number of missions to take out SAM’s.
For the most part the North was offlimits. This was one of the major flaws in our war effort.
Are you just messing with me or do you really not know this stuff?
[/quote]
The US presence alone can be considered an invasion, since they had supported the french so strongly. Further, you should now fully well that the division was supposed to be temporary, and the government set up in the south was considered totally illegitimate by many. Why do you think washington supported not holding elections?
This issue is way to complicated to fully resolve on a forum. But it is not even my intention to resolve it, and I am by no means saying that the north was right. At best, the whole war was the result of a terrible misunderstanding of intentions.
As for who murdered whom, all I can say in that regard is many of the girls my mom went to school with had pretty interesting stories to tell. Obviously, there were autrocities on both sides. I think it’s interesting how both sides demonized each other, while pretending they had no blood on their hands.
Alexander you are precious:
In response to my North Vietnam was communist you responded:
“no they weren’t. They had no interest in economic systems. It is true that they turned to the USSR for help, but it was not because of shared ideology.”
You heard it here: Alexander said North Vietnam was not communist!!!
I love it!!!
This should clear it up:
www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38738
Alexander, if you don’t read this link you are a “bad” person.
“I try to avoid determining calling one side “the good guys” and the other “the bad guys”. It is an oversimplification, in which you inevitably commit a fundemental attribition error. I suspect a person would have to be borderline retarded to think in terms of “good guys” and “bad guys”.”
Have you met my friend POX. He’s a nice person.
"Per Alexander: “It wasn’t fair that the North Vietnamese didn’t get aid.”
“When you use quotation marks, it is important to quote verbatim, or make it entirely obvious you are not. making stuff up, and putting it around quotes makes you look disingenuous”
Here is the entire paragraph:
Alexander wrote:
“Maybe the anti-war crowd thought that since the military government the US helped overthrow the south(even if it was unintentional, which is uncertain) was receiving help in what was essentially a civil war, it was only fair to provide humanitarian aid to the other side?”
A little wordy for me.
However, I won’t hold my breath for the apology on the “making things up” comment.
“But you know what, this might all be a little to complicated for you. Go right ahead and dumb it down as far as you need in order for it to make sense to you.”
If socialism/communism is “intelligent,” I’ll stay ignorant. My way is about 200 million people less bloody.
Thanks!!!
JeffR