Page 40 of 51 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 503

Thread: America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' [W:306]

  1. #391
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' [W:306]

    Quote Originally Posted by annata View Post
    with all due respect, i took you up on this. This is the best and really only "what if" I could find, please let me know if you have a better source.i tried to find the salient phrase or 2, that actually claims if the US hadn't withdrawn support; somehow the ARVN forces could have stepped up and defeated, and unified Vietnam.
    Thanks, Annata. There are a whole lot of google articles of varying opinions here https://www.google.ca/search?q=ameri...FMblyQHrt4DwBg It was a very painful time in American history and I don;t know if it worthwhile going through the whole thing again. I certainly don't pretend to be an expert but i do like to some some research when I feel that propaganda is being used, as it certainly was.

    While it's true the US forces never lost a battle (as commonly stated) the US couldn't stay there in perpetuity.
    They've done that in Europe but the troops could have left for deployment Vietnam rather than remaining scattered across Europe, well after the time they became essential.. It seems we have learned to much from Vietnam and not enough from WWII.

    Nixon's idea was "Vietnamization"; very similar to the 'transition' we are trying to accomplish as the ISAF forces withdrawl from Afganistan.
    These constant 'withdrawals' are not doing anyone any good. As far as the enemy is concerned it is a 'retreat'. not a withdrawal.

    I don't buy either premise. It's not like we didn't give our all in Vietnam -
    the prosecution of the war was escalated to carpet bombing, mining Hanoi's harbor, etc.
    That's what you do in a war until the enemy retreats.

    There isn't anything I can think of we didn't do that would have turned that war around, to the point the S. Vietnamese could have taken control of the country
    The war was lost in the United States, not in Vietnam

    The same thing is going to happen in Afganistan, if history is any guide.
    As we leave security forces in place to somehow support the Afgan national forces; the Afgani forces have to be able to withstand the Talban.
    The similarity of the Taliban to the Vietnam's Viet Cong, and the NVA is that those forces are more dedicated to winning.

    That's what happened in Vietnam; no matter how much longer we stayed, in the end the S. Vietnamese didn't want to win badly enough.Not being able to see the future, but seeing this template in play in Vietnam, i would assume, the same situtation will happen in Afg. The Taliban are more dedicated to winning, and seizing the gov't -
    even as the existing representative western style gov't in place is makig plans for a support role for the Talban.
    In other words; both the V.C. and the Taliban were/are not going to settle for any power sharing arrangement
    South Vietnam could not win without American help. Remember they were fighting Russia and Chinese communists as well.

    The enemies of democracy seem to have learned a great deal more from Vietnam than many of the American people. If the combined forces of the United States, the world's only Superpower, and all the other democracies, cannot defeat a ragtag army of third world terrorists what does that say about our futures, and those of our children?

    As the US retreats from the world stage there will be other powers, probably from Asia, who will take its place. Perhaps these next 'superpowers' will have the stomach to finish a war as easily as it starts, or before it gets out of hand.
    Last edited by Grant; 11-11-13 at 05:04 PM.

  2. #392
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' [W:306]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    The 'middle' doesn't seem to exist for the left. You are with them, right wing, or extreme right wing. Most leftists probably didn't give this much thought, but Saul Alinsky did.
    The most effective leftists know that political action in the USA is mostly about convincing the people in the middle that our position is morally and factually correct. It has been very successful in many areas, including human rights, labor rights, censorship, gay rights, and other human rights that have resulted in concrete political progress. Awareness has been raised in may other areas such as privacy rights, the drug wars, foreign intervention etc that hasn't had much politiical success yet, but may eventually.

  3. #393
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' [W:306]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    ...It was never about communism versus capitalism, it was communism versus human rights and freedoms. But claiming it was against 'capitalism' made a better argument for totalitarianism.
    If that was true the USA's political establishment would not have supported so many regimes that abused human rights as much as any communist regime. We also wouldn't have overthrown democratically elected governments that had good human rights records just because they were socialist or hostile to foreign businesses.

  4. #394
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' [W:306]

    Quote Originally Posted by annata View Post
    with all due respect, i took you up on this. This is the best and really only "what if" I could find, please let me know if you have a better source.



    i tried to find the salient phrase or 2, that actually claims if the US hadn't withdrawn support;
    somehow the ARVN forces could have stepped up and defeated, and unified Vietnam.
    China and the USSR had resupplied and rearmed the relative new army of North Vietnam while American law prevented us from adequately supplying the South Vietnam Army. It's amazing they fought as well as they did.

    While it's true the US forces never lost a battle (as commonly stated) the US couldn't stay there in perpetuity.
    Nixon's idea was "Vietnamization"; very similar to the 'transition' we are trying to accomplish as the ISAF forces withdrawl from Afganistan.
    Why not? We still have troops in Korea and Europe.

    I don't buy either premise. It's not like we didn't give our all in Vietnam -
    the prosecution of the war was escalated to carpet bombing, mining Hanoi's harbor, etc.
    We did not come close to giving it our all in that war. We didn't even employ a sound strategy because of self imposed political constraints. Even then, what we did worked until we quit.

    There isn't anything I can think of we didn't do that would have turned that war around,
    to the point the S. Vietnamese could have taken control of the country.
    It's very possible that there isn't anything you can think of for us to win the war. But that doesn't mean things were not available. But regardless, we did turn it around with our combat troops.

    The same thing is going to happen in Afganistan, if history is any guide.
    As we leave security forces in place to somehow support the Afgan national forces; the Afgani forces have to be able to withstand the Talban.
    The similarity of the Taliban to the Vietnam's Viet Cong, and the NVA is that those forces are more dedicated to winning.
    The German SS and even the German Army was far more dedicated to winning than our Army was. Why? Simple. Fight the enemy until you die or take one in the head from us, plus family repercussions. Same with North Vietnam. But we won WWII because of determined political leadership.

    That's what happened in Vietnam; no matter how much longer we stayed, in the end the S. Vietnamese didn't want to win badly enough.
    Of course they did. But without beans and bullets, they didn't stand a chance.

    Not being able to see the future, but seeing this template in play in Vietnam, i would assume, the same situtation will happen in Afg.
    The Taliban are more dedicated to winning, and seizing the gov't -
    even as the existing representative western style gov't in place is makig plans for a support role for the Talban.

    In other words; both the V.C. and the Taliban were/are not going to settle for any power sharing arrangement
    Of course they will and both have. And you said VC but I'm guessing you also mean North Vietnam (not the same as VC).
    Suggest reading "Embers of War" and "A Solider Reports".
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

  5. #395
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' [W:306]

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    The war was an imperialistic aggression to keep Vietnam under Western control, especially the ocean area and shipping channels around South Vietnam.
    If you enjoy researching history and the meaning of words then you'll know that it was the Communists, not the Americans and their Allies, who were 'imperialistic'. The evidence is all there, from Eastern Europe, to Africa, Central America, South America and, of course, Asia. To say that it was the Americans who were the Imperialists is straight ahead nonsense.

    Ho Chi Minh actually requested US aid after WWII to help stabilize his country. The Red Contagion must be what is operating in Vietnam today because they won the war. I don't see any problems or threats from Vietnam, must be overblown conspiracy theories by radical right wing, neocon nutjobs, eh.
    Wow! It was the communists who were the threat and they managed to murder over 100 million people, plus destroy the lies of millions more. You seriously don't know this, despite all the information having been released since the USSR collapsed?

  6. #396
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' [W:306]

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    If that was true the USA's political establishment would not have supported so many regimes that abused human rights as much as any communist regime. We also wouldn't have overthrown democratically elected governments that had good human rights records just because they were socialist or hostile to foreign businesses.
    Yes, that 'supporting regimes' theory is used a lot to vilify the United States but in a time of war we can't always pick our friends the way we can during times of peace.

  7. #397
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' [W:306]

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    The war was an imperialistic aggression to keep Vietnam under Western control, especially the ocean area and shipping channels around South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh actually requested US aid after WWII to help stabilize his country. The Red Contagion must be what is operating in Vietnam today because they won the war. I don't see any problems or threats from Vietnam, must be overblown conspiracy theories by radical right wing, neocon nutjobs, eh.
    Of course he did, why wouldn't he? That would have left him holding just about all of the cards. His request wasn't because he was a nice, peaceful guy. He knew he was going to murder plenty of people either way but with our backing it would have made things easier and quicker for him to turn all of the people of Vietnam into communist puppets.
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

  8. #398
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,461

    Re: America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' [W:306]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    If you enjoy researching history and the meaning of words then you'll know that it was the Communists, not the Americans and their Allies, who were 'imperialistic'. The evidence is all there, from Eastern Europe, to Africa, Central America, South America and, of course, Asia. To say that it was the Americans who were the Imperialists is straight ahead nonsense.



    Wow! It was the communists who were the threat and they managed to murder over 100 million people, plus destroy the lies of millions more. You seriously don't know this, despite all the information having been released since the USSR collapsed?
    Do you spell "Communists" FRANCE. Vietnam was a French colony. Colony a/k/a colonizers. Imperialists. Ho Chi Minh was Vietnamese. French are French. Americans are Americans. Vietnam is for Vietnamese. Ergo, if there is any fighting in Vietnam, it should be between Vietnamese and any others are interlopers. We do not spread liberty, justice, freedom, liberty and justice for all. We acquire resources for Corporate America and strategic geography for our military. Wake up.

  9. #399
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,461

    Re: America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' [W:306]

    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree View Post
    Of course he did, why wouldn't he? That would have left him holding just about all of the cards. His request wasn't because he was a nice, peaceful guy. He knew he was going to murder plenty of people either way but with our backing it would have made things easier and quicker for him to turn all of the people of Vietnam into communist puppets.
    Ho Chi Minh was the "George Washington" of Vietnam, even in South Vietnam. He had united the citizenry against a common enemy, France, and had we not butted in, there would be a million more Vietnamese.

  10. #400
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' [W:306]

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    French are French. Americans are Americans.
    Wow. That's really heavy, man.

Page 40 of 51 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •